









































 
 
 
 
 

 
www.companyofscientists.com/index.php/chd e1 Cancer Health Disparities 

RESEARCH 

Lack of disparities studies related to 
pharmacogenomics 
Satyajit Patra1, Shivani Modi2,. 

1American International Medical University, Saint Lucia. 2Keck Graduate Institute, Claremont, CA 91711 

*Corresponding author: Satyajit Patra, satyajitpatra@gmail.com  

ABSTRACT 
Based on personal polymorphism and algorithmic interpretation, pharmacogenomics interventions in 
healthcare are chosen, directing pharmacotherapies in patients. As a part of precision medicine, 
pharmacogenomics offers a unique chance to set the bar for treating patients as particular individuals 
with specific needs. Like with any intervention, the benefit- the to-risk ratio needs to be considered. 
Information gaps and people’s lack of knowledge of pharmacogenomics will always be problems, as will 
their unfamiliarity with the subject. As there are more genes, there are more potential diseases and 
environmental factors that could mask the impact of genes. As a result, multigene models in vast 
populations must always be considered for research. There aren’t many studies that look at how 
pharmacogenomics affects health disparities. Additional research is needed to assess health differences 
between ethnic groups and nations and within a single country. 

KEYWORDS: disparities; efficacy; equity; genetics; pharmacogenomics.  

Citation: Patra S et al (2023) Lack of disparities studies related to pharmacogenomics. Cancer Health 
Disparities 7:e1-3. doi:10.9777/chd.2023.1002 
 
Introduction 
Pharmacogenomics is known to investigate the 
influence of genetic factors on the human body’s 
response to drugs. Pharmacogenomic technology 
redirects drug development towards improving 
the security and effectiveness of patient care. 
Specifically formulated drugs that address a variety 
of medical diseases, such as asthma, cancer, 
Alzheimer’s disease, and cardiovascular disease, 
are made using pharmacogenomics. It is an 
authentic example of precision medicine at work. 
However, considering the lack of genome-wide 
arrays in most clinical pharmacogenetic labs limits 
the ability to infer the patient’s genetic history. 

Racial variations in humans and their genetic 
origins may have resulted from the extensive 
movement and interaction of human populations. 
Despite significant advances in the capacity of 
genetic technologies and enhancing disease 
management, using genomic data to alleviate 
health disparities in marginalized people still 
requires a lot of research and development. 

The ongoing GWAS(genome-wide association 
study) analyses highlight the growing problem of 
genetic variation and the danger of leaving out 
population-specific SNPs, which are essential for 
ensuring that precision medicine is accessible to all 
people. Even though these pharmacogenomic 



 
 
 
 
 

 
www.companyofscientists.com/index.php/chd e2 Cancer Health Disparities 

RESEARCH 

relevant markers have improved our 
understanding of the underlying mechanisms 
underlying drug treatments, they are common in 
patients of one ancestry. They do not always 
replicate in other populations due to differences in 
allelic frequency, linkage disequilibrium (LD), and 
confounding environmental factors. This additional 
source of variation may affect how strongly SNPs 
are connected with the intended characteristic 
because ancestry varies in admixed groups. For 
example, Mexican Americans are among those of 
Mexican descent who live in the US. There may be 
significant differences in ancestry among Mexican 
Americans based on their ancestral origins and 
geographic locations within Central America, 
depending on their ancestors’ migration from 
European countries to Mexico, their ancestors’ 
indigenous origins in Mexico, or a combination of 
the aforementioned geographical areas (Martin et 
al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2019). Numerous 
populations, more importantly from a diverse 
group, must be included in genomic studies to 
evaluate the accuracy and broader applicability of 
findings that can help us comprehend the genetic 
variation in complex traits. 

Cost-effectiveness has caused a lack of clinical 
practice, which may have hindered research on 
the effects of pharmacogenomics on healthcare 
inequities (Davies, 2006; Plumpton et al., 2016). 
Adverse drug responses (ADRs) brought on by 
genetic variations in the population are a common 
and severe public health hazard since they can 
potentially exacerbate patient conditions and 
increase the cost burden on healthcare systems. 
For example, amlodipine accumulates within cells 
in the ABCB1 gene. Polymorphisms impact 
amlodipine’s pharmacokinetics in this transporter 
and gender differences affect how this gene is 
expressed. The authors of the study claim that 
men with ABCB1 gene variants require higher 
amlodipine concentrations than women. There is 

no correlation between the frequency of variance 
and its effect on the efficiency of amlodipine 
because there are so few studies on the predicted 
gene’s function (Johnson et al., 2019). 

The challenges with access, availability, ability to 
pay privately, and comprehension of medical 
information are also the primary hurdle for 
uniform application in various populations. When 
introducing ground-breaking technologies in 
healthcare services, many factors could impair 
resilience over the long run and affect long-term 
effectiveness. The availability of funds and 
allocation among these criteria are essential 
because they can establish priorities and direct the 
course of technological advancement, aspects that 
impact a particular technology’s long-term viability 
and success and, consequently, its resilience. For 
instance, if funding for pharmaceutical research 
and development is inadequate, it may be harder 
to discover novel therapies that can better address 
public health needs. In less affluent areas 
compared to more educated and rich ones, new 
treatments or tests may also be embraced more 
slowly and in lower numbers. One of the many 
reasons behind the failure to include diverse 
populations in genomic studies is that a person’s 
level of personal risk awareness, scheduling 
difficulties brought on by time constraints, 
sociodemographic traits, and psychosocial issues 
can all make receiving medical care more difficult. 
As a result, it is vital to support proactive measures 
to reduce and eliminate inequities brought on by 
these factors (Olivier and Williams-Jones, 2011). To 
guarantee that the potential advantages of 
research are fully realized, deliberate choices 
should be taken to permit participation across 
sociodemographic categories throughout the 
development process. 

There is ambiguity regarding what the difference 
between disparity and race means to health and 



 
 
 
 
 

 
www.companyofscientists.com/index.php/chd e3 Cancer Health Disparities 

RESEARCH 

disease when it comes to an understanding of how 
race has been defined to eliminate health 
inequities. The Institute of Medicine’s report on 
health disparities emphasizes that race significantly 
impacts health status and that many of these 
variances are environmental and associated with 
racial identity in the United States. There is 
currently a lack of knowledge regarding the 
significance of nativity, length of stay with other 
immigrants, and acculturation factors in illness risk. 
It is acknowledged that migration and 
acculturation impact migrant communities’ risk in 
disparity in the West. Combining it with dietary 
and lifestyle modifications brought on by 
immigration. 

The FDA should require companies and 
researchers that relate racial variations in drug 
response to conduct additional research that 
clarifies the underlying causes. Research data used 
to make racialized conclusions should at the very 
least be made publicly available to let other 
researchers investigate further the theoretical 
foundations of findings of difference among 
groups. The need for coordinated efforts to ensure 
that underprivileged and poor individuals in the 
future would also have access to medical 
developments is widely acknowledged. In 
subsequent pharmacogenomics studies, equity 
assessments should be employed to fill the 
information gap. To make the distribution of 
advantages in the future as nearly equal as 
possible, a system of compensations (in the form 
of healthcare services) is in place for 
pharmacogenomic orphans. The list of limits may 
expand if further ethical issues caused by 
pharmacogenomics are taken into account; until 
now, only one has been addressed. 

Acknowledgment 
None 

Conflicts of interest 
The authors declare no competing interests.  

Authors’ contributions 
SP and SM contributed equally to draft, review and 
revise the paper. 

References 
Davies, S.M. (2006). Pharmacogenetics, pharmacogenomics 

and personalized medicine: are we there yet? 
Hematology American Society of Hematology Education 
Program, 111-117. 

Johnson, R., Dludla, P., Mabhida, S., Benjeddou, M., Louw, J., 
and February, F. (2019). Pharmacogenomics of 
amlodipine and hydrochlorothiazide therapy and the 
quest for improved control of hypertension: a mini 
review. Heart failure reviews 24, 343-357. 

Martin, A., Downing, J., Maden, M., Fleeman, N., Alfirevic, A., 
Haycox, A., and Pirmohamed, M. (2017). An assessment 
of the impact of pharmacogenomics on health 
disparities: a systematic literature review. 
Pharmacogenomics 18, 1541-1550. 

Olivier, C., and Williams-Jones, B. (2011). Pharmacogenomic 
technologies: a necessary "luxury" for better global public 
health? Globalization and health 7, 30. 

Plumpton, C.O., Roberts, D., Pirmohamed, M., and Hughes, 
D.A. (2016). A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations 
of Pharmacogenetic Testing for Prevention of Adverse 
Drug Reactions. PharmacoEconomics 34, 771-793. 

Zhang, H., De, T., Zhong, Y., and Perera, M.A. (2019). The 
Advantages and Challenges of Diversity in 
Pharmacogenomics: Can Minority Populations Bring Us 
Closer to Implementation? Clinical pharmacology and 
therapeutics 106, 338-349. 

 


	Introduction
	Acknowledgment
	Conflicts of interest
	Authors’ contributions

