Why the study?
It was unknown what fraction of patients receive prescriptions over a lifetime that could be contraindicated by their pharmacogenomic profiles.
What is the lifetime clinical utility and impact of pharmacogenomic testing in a general patient population?
What is the lifetime clinical utility and impact of pharmacogenomic testing in a general patient population?
Nearly 80% of a general patient population is prescribed medications over their lifetime that could be impacted by their pharmacogenomic profile, suggesting broad utility for preemptive testing prior to age 50.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support preemptive pharmacogenomic testing in general populations; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective outcome trials.
It is well known that common variants in specific genes influence drug metabolism and response, but it is currently unknown what fraction of patients are given prescriptions over a lifetime that could be contraindicated by their pharmacogenomic profiles. To determine the clinical utility of pharmacogenomics over a lifetime in a general patient population, we sequenced the genomes of 300 deceased Marshfield Clinic patients linked to lifelong medical records. Genetic variants in 33 pharmacogenes were evaluated for their lifetime impact on drug prescribing using extensive electronic health records. Results show that 93% of the 300 deceased patients carried clinically relevant variants. Nearly 80% were prescribed approximately three medications on average that may have been impacted by these variants. Longitudinal data suggested that the optimal age for pharmacogenomic testing was prior to age 50, but the optimal age is greatly influenced by the stability of the population in the healthcare system. This study emphasizes the broad clinical impact of pharmacogenomic testing over a lifetime and demonstrates the potential application of genomic medicine in a general patient population for the advancement of precision medicine.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ye et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: