Pharmacogenomics and its Role in Cardiovascular Diseases: A Narrative Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pharmacogenomics has transformed the way we approach the treatment of the most common diseases worldwide, especially cardiovascular. In this article, we highlight the main categories of drugs involved in major cardiovascular diseases (CVD), related genetic variability and their effects on metabolism in each case of contrastive operability. This not only explains disparities in treatment outcomes but also unfolds customised management based on genomic studies to improve efficiency and limit side effects. Genetic variations have been identified that impact the efficacy, safety, and adverse effects of drugs commonly used in the treatment of CVD, such as Angiotensin converting Enzyme Inhibitor (ACEI), Angiotensin Receptor Blocker (ARBs), calcium channel blockers, antiplatelet agents, diuretics, statins, beta-blockers, and anticoagulants. It discusses the impact of genetic polymorphisms on drug metabolism, efficacy, and adverse reactions, highlighting the importance of genetic testing in optimizing treatment outcomes. Pharmacogenomics holds immense potential for revolutionizing the management of CVD by enabling personalized medicine approaches tailored to individual genetic profiles. However, challenges such as clinical implementation, cost-effectiveness, and ethical considerations need to be addressed to completely incorporate pharmacogenomic testing into standard clinical practice. Continued research and clinical diligence are required for the utilization of pharmacogenomics to improve therapeutic outcomes and reduce the burden of CVD globally.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".