Advertisement

American Journal of Pharmacogenomics

, Volume 3, Issue 6, pp 371–373 | Cite as

A Perspective on Progress in Pharmacogenomics

  • Robert W. KerwinEmail author
Commentary

The goal of pharmacogenetics/pharmacogenomics is to individualize drug therapy via non-invasive DNA profiling. This is clearly not a simple matter, and a degree of skepticism is justified; achievement of this goal has indeed been slower than predicted. Nonetheless, there are specific areas where (at least partial) pharmacogenomic profiling is nearing clinical utility.

The review by Nebert et al.[1] in this issue analyzes the many pitfalls of the much-hyped field of pharmacogenomics. As Steven Jones from University College, London, once said in a radio interview, the four letters of the genetic code are H, Y, P and E, and this review comes from this end of the spectrum of views about the field. The authors are uncritically pessimistic about the future clinical applications of pharmacogenomics.

Perhaps the message has become confused regarding what is pharmacogenetics versus what is pharmacogenomics. Is there a difference? Whatever the semantics, there are two components. One is using...

Keywords

Clozapine Cholesteryl Ester Transfer Protein Anticoagulation Clinic CYP2C9 Gene Clozapine Response 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Nebert DW, Jorge-Nebert L, Vesell ES. Pharmacogenomics and “individualized drug therapy”: high expectations and disappointing achievements. Am J Pharmacogenomics 2003; 3(6): 361–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abbott A. With your genes?: take one of these three times a day. Nature 2003; 245: 760–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bell J. The Human genome. In: Marinker M, Peckham M. editors. Clinical futures. London: BMJ Books, 1998Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Johnson JA, Terra SG. Beta-adrenergic receptor polymorphisms: cardiovascular disease associations and pharmacogenetics. Pharm Res 2002; 19: 1179–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lynch KR, O’Neill GP, Liu Q, et al. Characterisation of the human cysteinyl leukotriene Cys LT receptor. Nature 1999; 399: 789–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kuivenhoven JA, Jukema JW, Zwinderman AH, et al. The role of a common variant of the cholesterol ester transfer protein gene in the progression of coronary atherosclerosis. N Engl J Med 1998; 338: 86–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mancama D, Arranz MJ, Kerwin RW. Genetic predictors of therapeutic response to clozapine: current status of research. CNS Drugs 2002; 16(5): 317–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Arranz MJ, Munro J, Birkett J, et al. Pharmacogenetic prediction of clozapine response. Lancet 2000; 355: 1615–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bertilsson L, Dahl ML. Polymorphic drug oxidation. CNS Drugs 1996; 5: 200–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Higashi M, Veenstra D, Kondo LM, et al. Association between CYP2C9 genetic variants and anticocoagulant related outcomes during warfarin therapy. JAMA 2002; 287: 1690–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Danzon P, Towse A. The economics of gene therapy and pharmacogenetics. Value Health 2002; 5(1): 5–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Section of Clinical NeuropharmacologyInstitute of Psychiatry, Kings CollegeLondonEngland

Personalised recommendations