ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2025
Unravelling the implementation of pharmacogenetic testing in Belgium.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Uptake of DPYD and UGT1A1 testing in Italy and adherence to pharmacogenetic guidelines: A 5-year perspective from an EQA provider.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Advancing pharmacogenomics in medicines regulation and clinical practice: a call for collaborative action.Nature reviews. Drug discovery · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of Oxford Nanopore Technologies' adaptive sampling and the Twist long-read PGx panel for pharmacogenomic profiling.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAlthough already a lot of research has been done on pharmacogenetic tests to inform the choice and/or dosing of medicines, the implementation and clinical uptake remain limited. This study assessed the implementation of pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing on a national scale by analyzing access to and volumes of reimbursed PGx.
methodsThe use of pharmacogenetic tests was examined via a cross-sectional online survey among the Belgian laboratories, collecting data on PGx targets, testing volumes and technologies used. The focus was on reimbursed tests. Additional data were sourced from the national reimbursement database to describe uptake of testing per medication.
resultsThe uptake of PGx testing in Belgium varied by medication, with significant implementation for fluoropyrimidines, abacavir, and thiopurines. DPYD gene testing was the most frequently performed PGx test, due to endorsed (inter)national guidelines. Reimbursement rules shape access to PGx, with the majority of PGx tests performed in dedicated centers for human genetics (CHG). Access to HLA laboratories for HLA targets was not optimal and some laboratories without a CHG also included constitutional PGx targets in somatic oncology panels.
conclusionThis nationwide study demonstrates that in a country where the prescribers have access to a relatively extensive list of reimbursable PGx tests, the implementation of PGx testing is shaped by the presence of endorsed evidence-based clinical practice guidelines, as well as organizational and logistical factors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40019504What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.