Back

Scalable system-wide CYP2C19 pharmacogenomic testing reveals 38% excess incidence of adverse events in metabolizers receiving inappropriate prescriptions

Telis, N.; Stoller, D.; Chapman, C. N.; Chahal, C. A. A.; Judge, D.; Olson, D. A.; Grzymski, J. J.; Kruisselbrink, T.; Washington, N. L.; Cirulli, E. T.

2025-03-13 pharmacology and therapeutics
10.1101/2025.03.13.25323700 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveIn spite of evidence and recommendations reflecting the importance of pharmacogenomic testing, most prescriptions are still given without testing. We demonstrate the real world implications of the use of testing and evaluate adverse events and outcomes in individuals who did not receive pharmacogenomic testing for clopidogrel. MethodsWe analyzed ~100K individuals with paired EHR and exome sequencing data from population health studies administered at multiple medical centers using the Helix Exome+(R) assay. We inferred clopidogrel dosage by processing the prescription with an LLM. We identified all instances of individuals with at least one prescription that is not in concordance with their CYP2C19 genotype. Lastly, we identify instances of thrombosis using a comprehensive codeset based on ICD9, ICD10, and SNOMED terms. ResultsWe identified 16,140 prescriptions of clopidogrel given to 3,853 participants. We found that 29% of these individuals have a mismatch between the recommended clopidogrel dosage guideline based on their CYP2C19 genotype and their actual prescribed daily dosage. 25% of poor metabolizers experienced thrombosis, with 40% occurring within 2 months of treatment. Poor and intermediate metabolizers receiving clopidogrel are much more likely to experience thrombosis and myocardial infarction (binomial p-value = 0.001). ConclusionsWe estimate a 38% excess of adverse events occur in poor and intermediate metabolizers relative to normal and rapid metabolizers. The lack of testing may be responsible for 1 thrombosis event per every ~30 people prescribed clopidogrel.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.9%
2
Clinical and Translational Science
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.9%
3
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.6%
50% of probability mass above
4
The American Journal of Human Genetics
206 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
6.9%
5
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.0%
6
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 39%
3.7%
7
BioData Mining
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.3%
8
Nature
575 papers in training set
Top 8%
2.6%
9
Science Translational Medicine
111 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
10
Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine
42 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.9%
11
Atherosclerosis
29 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.9%
12
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
13
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
14
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 61%
1.1%
15
npj Genomic Medicine
33 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
16
Circulation
66 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
17
BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health
10 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
18
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
45 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
19
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 24%
0.8%
20
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
21
Journal of Translational Medicine
46 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
22
Brain
154 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
23
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.7%
24
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
25
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
26
Journal of Personalized Medicine
28 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
27
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%