PromicsEdge DNAmind PGx vs Conventional PGx: Guidance for Practitioners

PromicsEdge offers two pharmacogenomics (PGx) reports that serve distinct clinical and educational purposes. This document is intended for healthcare professionals to clearly understand how the DNAmind PGx and Conventional PGx (Medication Check) reports differ, when each is appropriate, and how to position them responsibly in practice.

Executive Summary

• Conventional PGx is a clinically validated, guideline‑driven report intended to support medication selection and dosing discussions.
• DNAmind PGx is an exploratory, mental‑health‑focused report designed to mirror popular psychiatric PGx reports (e.g., "Genomind"‑style reports).
• DNAmind is not validated by our science or R&D teams and includes low‑evidence and hypothetical associations.
• The two reports are not interchangeable and should not be positioned as such.

1. Scientific Validation & Governance

Conventional PGx

• Fully reviewed and validated by our science and R&D teams
• Conservative by design, prioritizing reproducibility and clinical reliability
• Built to align with real‑world medical decision‑making workflows

DNAmind PGx

• Explicitly not validated by our science and R&D teams
• Includes extrapolated, hypothesis‑based, and non‑authoritative interpretations
• Designed for educational insight and discussion—not clinical action

Clinical implication: Only the Conventional PGx report should be relied upon when clinical confidence and defensibility are required.

2. Evidence Standards

Conventional PGx

• Includes only variants with moderate to high levels of evidence
• Draws from established pharmacogenomic authorities, including:
  • CPIC
  • PharmGKB
  • FDA‑recognized and DPWG guidelines
• All recommendations are traceable to recognized clinical guidance

DNAmind PGx

• Additionally includes:
  • Low‑evidence associations
  • Non‑replicated findings
  • Mechanistic or pathway‑based hypotheses
• Some variants are included for pattern recognition or theoretical relevance rather than clinical consensus

Clinical implication: DNAmind findings should never be treated as clinical and should not independently guide medication changes.

3. Clinical Scope & Focus

Conventional PGx

• Broad, cross‑disciplinary medication coverage, including:
  • Cardiovascular agents
  • Gastrointestinal medications
  • Immunology and oncology therapies
  • Pain management
  • Select psychiatric drugs with strong evidence bases

DNAmind PGx

• Narrower but deeper focus on mental health and neuropsychiatry, including:
  • Antidepressants (SSRIs, SNRIs, TCAs, MAOIs)
  • Antipsychotics
  • ADHD medications
  • Anxiolytics and hypnotics
  • Mood stabilizers
• Includes neurotransmitter receptors, transporters, and side‑effect susceptibility genes often excluded from conservative PGx panels

Clinical implication: DNAmind may surface discussion‑worthy signals in psychiatry but sacrifices evidentiary rigor for breadth.

4. Intended Use in Practice

Appropriate Uses

Conventional PGx

• Medication selection support
• Dose adjustment discussions
• Risk stratification grounded in consensus guidelines
• Documentation‑friendly, defensible clinical conversations

DNAmind PGx

• Educational exploration with informed clients
• Contextualizing prior medication responses
• Generating hypotheses for further evaluation or confirmatory testing
• Practitioner‑guided discussion only

Inappropriate Uses (DNAmind)

• Initiating, discontinuing, or modifying medications
• Replacing validated PGx testing
• Standalone clinical decision‑making

6. Practitioner Positioning & Best Practices

To use these reports responsibly:

• Clearly explain the distinction to clients
• Frame DNAmind results as informational and hypothetical
• Use Conventional PGx when documentation, liability, or clinical certainty matters
• Avoid over‑interpreting low‑evidence variants
• When in doubt, confirm with clinical‑grade PGx testing

Bottom Line for Practitioners

• Conventional PGx = validated, conservative, guideline‑aligned
• DNAmind PGx = exploratory, psychiatry‑focused, hypothesis‑driven

Both can add value—but only when used within their appropriate clinical context.