Researchers reviewed the current state of preemptive pharmacogenetics (PGx) testing, which looks at how a person's genes affect their response to medications. While the adoption of these tests is well-documented, the evidence regarding how well these programs last over time and stay consistent is currently very limited.
One major finding is that most data regarding the cost-effectiveness of these tests come from computer models rather than real-world trials. Additionally, there is a significant equity gap in the research. Almost all published programs for these tests come from high-income countries, leaving a lack of data for other regions.
Because the evidence is still early and limited, it is not yet clear how these programs perform in everyday practice. The study suggests that more work is needed to create standard workflows and better education to help bridge the gap between research and clinical use. Patients should talk to their doctors about how these tests might apply to their specific needs.
Common questions
What is preemptive pharmacogenetics testing?
Preemptive pharmacogenetics (PGx) testing looks at how a person's genetic makeup affects their response to specific medications. This testing aims to help doctors choose the safest and most effective drugs for patients. While adoption is well-documented, more research is needed to see how these programs work over the long term.
Is pharmacogenetics testing cost-effective?
It is currently difficult to say for certain. Most of the data regarding the cost-effectiveness of these programs comes from modeling rather than actual implementation trials. Because of this, the real-world costs and benefits are not yet fully established in clinical practice.
Is this testing available to everyone?
There is currently a significant equity gap in the research. Nearly all published programs for preemptive pharmacogenetics testing originate from high-income countries. This means there is a lack of data and established programs for people in low- or middle-income settings.