ArticleJournal of clinical pharmacology2026
Genome Sequencing Enhances Precision and Clinical Utility of Pharmacogenetic Data Compared to Arrays.
Article in Journal of clinical pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
While pharmacogenetic testing has traditionally relied on array-based genotyping platforms, these methods are limited by incomplete variant coverage and inability to detect novel alleles. We hypothesize that the performance of genome sequencing (GS) is superior to that of an array-based genotyping method for gene-drug pairs that are clinically implemented at the NIH Clinical Center. DNA was collected from a cohort of 293 patients from a single-center prospective cohort study at the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. Post hoc analysis was conducted in probands with genetically inferred ancestry: European, African, African American, and Asian. The primary endpoint was to determine concordance between GS, exome sequencing (ES), and a commercial genotyping array while assessing accuracy of non-concordant alleles using orthogonal sequencing. In a cohort of 293 individuals genotyped with a commonly used array, GS (n = 120) and/or ES (n = 185) was conducted. GS demonstrated superior accuracy, resolving unknown or ambiguous array-based allele calls in 5% of cases, ultimately achieving 99% baseline accuracy. Moreover, we confirmed discordances between array-based calls and GS in favor of GS through validation by orthogonal sequencing methods such as long-read sequencing. We highlight clinically significant inaccuracies that include critical variants missed by arrays and ES. From a cost perspective, GS proved comparable or superior to array-based methods, with significantly greater clinical applicability and flexibility. Our findings underscore the feasibility and superiority of integrating GS-based pharmacogenetics testing into clinical settings, demonstrating robust analytical performance, improved patient management potential, and a pathway toward broader, lifetime utility of genomic data.
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.