ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Model-based clinical utility of pharmacogenetic testing and its potential population impact on the use of essential medicines in Zimbabwe.
Article in Frontiers in 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Pharmacogenomic-related adverse drug reactions and treatment failure contribute to global morbidity. Evidence for PGx-guided therapy in sub-Saharan Africa remains limited with few implementation studies. This study evaluated the potential clinical utility and projected population-level impact of pharmacogenomic testing in Zimbabwe. Methodology: A cross-sectional analysis used the Zimbabwe Essential Medicines List, DPWG guidelines, Zimbabwean genotype/phenotype data, and locally approved Summary of Product Characteristics. For the actionable gene-drug pairs identified, the number needed to genotype values were calculated from DPWG-defined absolute risk reduction and local genotype-phenotype frequencies. Potential clinical utility was assessed using the Clinical Implication Score framework and compared with Dutch population data. Results: Among 308 medicines screened, 30 (9.7%) contained actionable pharmacogenomic biomarkers, corresponding to 38 gene-drug pairs, all classified as vital or essential medicines. Lower NNG values were observed for UGT1A1-atazanavir (5), UGT1A1-irinotecan (9), CYP2B6-efavirenz (26), and CYP2C9-phenytoin (25), whereas 61% of gene-drug pairs had NNG values > 1,000 compared with 47% in the Dutch population. Overall, 81.6% of PGx recommendations were concordant across populations, while 21.1% were reclassified, primarily due to differences in local genetic profiles and the limited inclusion of PGx information in the Zimbabwean SmPCs, with 42% lacking PGx information compared with 24% in the Dutch dataset. Conclusion: Many essential medicines in Zimbabwe have actionable pharmacogenomic biomarkers, but gaps in local genomic guidance remain. Strengthening local evidence generation and PGx implementation is essential.
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.