ReviewBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2026
Pharmacogenomics in clinical practice: Biomarker information in Brazilian drug labels.
Review in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Pharmacogenomics in clinical practice: Biomarker information in Brazilian drug labels.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
This review examines the PGx annotations in package inserts (bulas in Brazilian Portuguese) approved by ANVISA, the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency, for 19 gene-drug pairs with strong or moderate recommendations for initial dosing alteration in the CPIC (Clinical Pharmacogenetic Implementation Consortion) guidelines and PGx testing required or recommended by health regulatory agencies listed in the PharmGKB Drug Label Annotations table. It is assumed that drug-gene pairs with these two features should be prioritized for adoption by the Brazilian Public Health System (SUS). PGx annotations were distributed across seven of the ten sections of the bulas and classified as PGx testing required (n = 5), PGx testing recommended (n = 5), actionable PGx (n = 4) and no PGx clinical information (n = 4). Pairwise comparison of assigned PGx levels in ANVISA bulas vs. the selected regulatory agencies revealed poor concordance (Cohen's kappa coefficient κ < 0.20 for all pairs); however, discordance among these agencies is also considerable (Fleiss's kappa coefficient κ = 0.08). The frequency of the examined PGx risk biomarkers in representative Brazilian cohorts range from <0.1% to 10.8%. Importantly, Native Americans (0.4% of the current Brazilian population), display wide PGx diversity, both interethnically and in relation to non-Indigenous Brazilians. The author suggests that addition of a PGx section to the ANVISA bulas would avoid dispersion of clinically relevant PGx information across sections, assure integration of this information with SUS determinations and prevent discrepancies across sections, as observed in the bulas for thiopurines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.