Critical evaluation of the current landscape of pharmacogenomics in Parkinson's disease - What is missing? A systematic review.

Introduction: The first-line treatment for Parkinson's disease (PD) involves dopamine-replacement therapies; however, significant variability exists in patient responses. Pharmacogenomics has been explored as a potential approach to understanding and predicting treatment outcomes. This review aims to evaluate the current state of knowledge regarding the role of pharmacogenomics in PD, focusing on identifying challenges and proposing future directions.
Methods: We conducted a systematic review following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The PubMed database was searched for original, English-language studies using the R package 'RISmed.' Data were extracted and analyzed based on sample size, population origin, evaluated genes and polymorphisms, outcomes, and methodological approaches.
Results: Out of 183 identified articles, 76 met the inclusion criteria. The COMT-rs4680 polymorphism was the most frequently studied, and levodopa-related motor complications were the most commonly assessed outcomes. All but two studies employed a candidate gene approach. In 75 % of the studies, the sample size was fewer than 225 individuals. There was a notable underrepresentation of Latino participants, with a lack of studies from Latin American countries other than Brazil. None of the studies produced consistent results across investigations.
Conclusions: The variability in patient responses to PD treatments suggests a genetic predisposition. While current research has enhanced our understanding of PD medication metabolism, it has not yet fully elucidated the complex genetic interactions involved in PD pharmacogenomics. Novel approaches, larger and more genetically diverse cohorts, and improved data collection are essential for advancing pharmacogenomics in PD clinical practice.
Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Jennifer K. Hockings reports a relationship with MCG Health that includes: consulting or advisory. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
(Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)