Fulfilling the Promise of Personalized Medicine? Systematic Review and Field Synopsis of Pharmacogenetic Studies

BACKGROUND: Studies of the genetic basis of drug response could help clarify mechanisms of drug action/metabolism, and facilitate development of genotype-based predictive tests of efficacy or toxicity (pharmacogenetics). OBJECTIVES: We conducted a systematic review and field synopsis of pharmacogenetic studies to quantify the scope and quality of available evidence in this field in order to inform future research. DATA SOURCES: Original research articles were identified in Medline, reference lists from 24 meta-analyses/systematic reviews/review articles and U.S. Food and Drug Administration website of approved pharmacogenetic tests. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTION CRITERIA: We included any study in which either intended or adverse response to drug therapy was examined in relation to genetic variation in the germline or cancer cells in humans. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Study characteristics and data reported in abstracts were recorded. We further analysed full text from a random 10% subset of articles spanning the different subclasses of study. RESULTS: From 102,264 Medline hits and 1,641 articles from other sources, we identified 1,668 primary research articles (1987 to 2007, inclusive). A high proportion of remaining articles were reviews/commentaries (ratio of reviews to primary research approximately 25∶1). The majority of studies (81.8%) were set in Europe and North America focussing on cancer, cardiovascular disease and neurology/psychiatry. There was predominantly a candidate gene approach using common alleles, which despite small sample sizes (median 93 [IQR 40–222]) with no trend to an increase over time, generated a high proportion (74.5%) of nominally significant (p<0.05) reported associations suggesting the possibility of significance-chasing bias. Despite 136 examples of gene/drug interventions being the subject of ≥4 studies, only 31 meta-analyses were identified. The majority (69.4%) of end-points were continuous and likely surrogate rather than hard (binary) clinical end-points. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: The high expectation but limited translation of pharmacogenetic research thus far may be explained by the preponderance of reviews over primary research, small sample sizes, a mainly candidate gene approach, surrogate markers, an excess of nominally positive to truly positive associations and paucity of meta-analyses. Recommendations based on these findings should inform future study design to help realise the goal of personalised medicines. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not Registered