ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2026
Pharmacogenetic testing in Italy: results of a nationwide survey by the Joint Working Group for the pharmacogenetics implementation in Italy.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pharmacogenetics enables personalization of drug therapy based on an individual's genetic profile. Despite clinical relevance, implementation of pharmacogenetics remains limited. In Italy, integration is fragmented, with heterogeneous practices and a lack of national coordination. A comprehensive assessment of the current landscape is essential. A nationwide survey was conducted between January and October 2025 to map laboratories providing pharmacogenetic testing. A structured questionnaire collected data on institutional characteristics, testing workflows, pharmacogene panels, analytical methodologies, interpretation procedures, and reimbursement. Forty-nine laboratories participated (response rate: 65%). Most were part of public institutions (82%), primarily general or research hospitals. Testing was predominantly performed in medical genetics units (39%) and focused on oncology, specifically DPYD (94%) and UGT1A1 (84%) for fluoropyrimidine and irinotecan therapies. Adherence to national (SIF/AIOM) and international (CPIC/DPWG) guidelines was generally high; compliance with AMP Tier 1 analytical standards varied substantially. Pharmacological counseling was provided by only 29% of laboratories, mainly by clinical pharmacology units. Considerable heterogeneity emerged in testing platforms, bioinformatics tools, and the use of CE-IVD-certified kits. Marked geographical disparities were evident, with pharmacogenetic activity concentrated in Northern Italy. This survey provides the first national overview of pharmacogenetics implementation in Italy, revealing variability in laboratory practices, interpretation standards, and clinical integration. While oncology-related testing is widely adopted and guideline adherence is increasing, the lack of a coordinated national framework restricts consistency and equitable access. Establishing a coordinated network of pharmacogenetic laboratories with harmonized standards for testing, reporting, and education is crucial for evidence-based pharmacogenetic care.
Identifiers
41927802What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.