ReviewFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Implementation of preemptive pharmacogenetic testing: progress, puzzles and priorities from an implementation science perspective.
Review 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Preemptive pharmacogenetics (PGx) testing, which leverages genetic variation to predict drug response and toxicity, represents a pivotal advancement in precision medicine. By predicting drug-gene interactions and guiding precision dosing, it demonstrates significant potential to enhance drug safety and efficacy. However, its integration into routine clinical practice still faces a substantial translational gap. This review examines preemptive PGx testing implementation through an implementation science lens, moving beyond clinical utility to synthesize the implementation landscape and identify systemic integration challenges. Over the past decade, a growing body of pragmatic implementation studies has systematically cataloged barriers and facilitators across multiple levels. Adoption metrics are now relatively well-documented, however, evidence on fidelity and long-term sustainability remains scarce, and most cost-effectiveness data derive from modeling rather than implementation trials. Successful implementation of preemptive PGx testing requires synergistic strategies across multiple domains, generating robust evidence through large-scale pragmatic trials, building health informatics infrastructure, and establishing multidisciplinary service. Critical to this transformation are standardized clinical workflows, comprehensive education for healthcare providers and patients, and active participation in collaborative networks to accelerate knowledge sharing. A persistent equity gap remains that nearly all published preemptive PGx implementation programs originate from high-income countries, underscoring the urgent need for context-adapted approaches in low- and middle-income settings. Emerging implementation frameworks might offer practical guidance for embedding equity into implementation design. This paradigm shift necessitates coordinated efforts from multi-stakeholders to bridge the translational gap, ultimately enabling equitable and sustainable PGx implementation across diverse healthcare settings.
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.