Genotype-guided versus traditional clinical dosing of warfarin in patients of Asian ancestry: a randomized controlled trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Syn NL
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6038204 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Genotype-guided versus traditional clinical dosing of warfarin in patients of Asian ancestry: a randomized controlled trial.
Syn Nicholas L NL Wong Andrea Li-Ann AL Lee Soo-Chin SC Teoh Hock-Luen HL Yip James Wei Luen JWL Seet Raymond Cs RC Yeo Wee Tiong WT Kristanto William W Bee Ping-Chong PC Poon L M LM Marban Patrick P Wu Tuck Seng TS Winther Michael D MD Brunham Liam R LR Soong Richie R Tai Bee-Choo BC Goh Boon-Cher BC
BMC medicine 20180710 1
<h4>Background</h4>Genotype-guided warfarin dosing has been shown in some randomized trials to improve anticoagulation outcomes in individuals of European ancestry, yet its utility in Asian patients remains unresolved.<h4>Methods</h4>An open-label, non-inferiority, 1:1 randomized trial was conducted at three academic hospitals in South East Asia, involving 322 ethnically diverse patients newly indicated for warfarin (NCT00700895). Clinical follow-up was 90 days. The primary efficacy measure was ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:AIMS:Previous trials on the effectiveness of genotype-guided warfarin dosing vs. conventional dosing have been inconclusive. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing genotype-guided to conventional dosing strategies. METHODS:PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched up to 23 October 2017. RESULTS:A total of 76 and 94 entries were retrieved were retrieved from PubMed and the Cochrane Library, respectively. A total of 2626 subjects in the genotype-guided dosing (mean age 63.3 ± 5.8 years; 46% male) and 2604 subjects in the conventional dosing (mean age 64.7 ± 6.1 years; 46% male) groups (mean follow-up duration 64 days) from 18 trials were included. Compared with conventional dosing, genotype-guided dosing significantly shortened the time to first therapeutic international normalized ratio (INR) (mean difference 2.6 days, standard error 0.3 days; P < 0.0001; I2 0%) and time to first stable INR (mean difference 5.9 days, standard error 2.0 days; P < 0.01; I2 94%). Genotype-guided dosing also increased the time in therapeutic range (mean difference 3.1%, standard error 1.2%; P < 0.01; I2 80%) and reduced the risks of both excessive anticoagulation, defined as INR ≥4 [risk ratio (RR) 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78, 0.98; P < 0.05; I2 : 0%), and bleeding (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.69, 0.98; P < 0.05; I2 31%). No difference in thromboembolism (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.56, 1.26; P = 0.40; I2 0%) or mortality (RR 1.16; 95% CI 0.46, 2.91; P = 0.76; I2 0%) was observed between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS:Genotype-guided warfarin dosing offers better safety with less bleeding compared with conventional dosing strategies. No significant benefit on thromboembolism or mortality was evident.
| S-EPMC6089819 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundWarfarin is a widely prescribed anticoagulant, and its effect depends on various patient factors including genotypes. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing genotype-guided dosing (GD) of warfarin with standard dosing have shown mixed efficacy and safety outcomes. We performed a meta-analysis of all published RCTs comparing GD vs standard dosing in adult patients with various indications of warfarin use.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and relevant references for English language RCTs (inception through March 2014). We performed the meta-analysis using a random effects model.ResultsTen RCTs with a total of 2,505 patients were included in the meta-analysis. GD compared with standard dosing resulted in a similar % time in therapeutic range (TTR) at ≤ 1 month follow-up (39.7% vs 40.2%; mean difference [MD], -0.52 [95% CI, -3.15 to 2.10]; P = .70) and higher % TTR (59.4% vs 53%; MD, 6.35 [95% CI, 1.76-10.95]; P = .007) at > 1 month follow-up, a trend toward lower risk of major bleeding (risk ratio, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.19-0.1.11]; P = .08) at ≤ 1 month follow-up and lower risks of major bleeding (0.34 [95% CI, 0.16-0.74], P = .006) at > 1-month follow-up, and shorter time to maintenance dose (TMD) (24.6 days vs 34.1 days; MD, -9.54 days [95% CI, -18.10 to -0.98]; P = .03) at follow-up but had no effects on international normalized ratio [INR] > 4.0, nonmajor bleeding, thrombotic outcomes, or overall mortality.ConclusionsIn the first month of genotype-guided warfarin therapy, compared with standard dosing, there were no improvements in % TTR, INR > 4.0, major or minor bleeding, thromboembolism, or all-cause mortality. There was a shorter TMD, and, after 1 month, improved % TTR and major bleeding incidence, making this a cost-effective strategy in patients requiring longer anticoagulation therapy.
| S-EPMC4556123 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This prospective, single-blind, randomized study was designed to evaluate the effect of genotype-based warfarin dosing compared with standard warfarin dosing in Korean patients with mechanical cardiac valves. Patients were assigned to either the genotype-based dosing group or the standard dosing group using stratified block randomization. The genotype-based dosing equation was adopted from a previous study which included VKORC1 rs9934438, CYP2C9 rs1057910, CYP4F2 rs2108622, and age. Primary outcomes included the percentage of time in the therapeutic range (pTTR): (i) during the first week following initiation of warfarin therapy, (ii) during hospitalization and (iii) until the first outpatient visit. A total of 91 patients were included in the analysis, 42 treated with genotype-based warfarin dosing and 49 treated with standard warfarin dosing. The genotype frequency differences of the three SNPs included in this study (ie, VKORC1, CYP2C9, CYP4F2), between the genotype-based dosing and standard dosing groups were not different. The genotype-based dosing group trended toward higher pTTR when compared with the standard dosing group, although this difference was not statistically significant. In patients with aortic valve replacement, TTRTraditional and TTRRosendaal were significantly higher in the genotype-based dosing group when compared with the standard dosing group during the first week following treatment initiation [ie, 58.5% vs. 38.1% (p?=?0.009) and 64.0% vs. 44.6% (p?=?0.012), respectively]. Based on the results, the genotype-guided dosing did not offer a significant clinical advantage, but a possible benefit in patients with aortic valve replacement has been suggested.
| S-EPMC7181853 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Warfarin is an effective treatment for thromboembolic disease but has a narrow therapeutic index; optimal anticoagulation dosage can differ tremendously among individuals. We aimed to evaluate whether genotype-guided warfarin dosing is superior to routine clinical dosing for the outcomes of interest in Chinese patients. METHODS:We conducted a multicenter, randomized, single-blind, parallel-controlled trial from September 2014 to April 2017 in 15 hospitals in China. Eligible patients were ?18 years of age, with atrial fibrillation or deep vein thrombosis without previous treatment of warfarin or a bleeding disorder. Nine follow-up visits were performed during the 12-week study period. The primary outcome measure was the percentage of time in the therapeutic range of the international normalized ratio during the first 12 weeks after starting warfarin therapy. RESULTS:A total of 660 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to a genotype-guided dosing group or a control group under standard dosing. The genotype-guided dosing group had a significantly higher percentage of time in the therapeutic range than the control group (58.8% versus 53.2% [95% CI of group difference, 1.1-10.2]; P=0.01). The genotype-guided dosing group also achieved the target international normalized ratio sooner than the control group. In subgroup analyses, warfarin normal sensitivity group had an even higher percentage of time in the therapeutic range during the first 12 weeks compared with the control group (60.8% versus 48.9% [95% CI, 1.1-24.4]). The incidence of adverse events was low in both groups. CONCLUSIONS:The outcomes of genotype-guided warfarin dosing were superior to those of clinical standard dosing. These findings raise the prospect of precision warfarin treatment in China. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02211326.
| S-EPMC7439928 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRecently, using the patient's genotype to guide warfarin dosing has gained interest; however, whether pharmacogenetics-based dosing (PD) improves clinical outcomes compared to conventional dosing (CD) remains unclear. Thus, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate these two strategies.MethodsThe PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese VIP and Chinese Wan-fang databases were searched. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool was used to assess the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome was time within the therapeutic range (TTR); the secondary end points were the time to maintenance dose and time to first therapeutic international normalized ratio (INR), an INR greater than 4, adverse events, major bleeding, thromboembolism and death from any cause.ResultsA total of 11 trials involving 2,678 patients were included in our meta-analysis. The results showed that PD did not improve the TTR compared to CD, although PD significantly shortened the time to maintenance dose (MD = -8.80; 95% CI: -11.99 to -5.60; P<0.00001) and the time to first therapeutic INR (MD = -2.80; 95% CI: -3.45 to -2.15; P<0.00001). Additionally, PD significantly reduced the risk of adverse events (RR = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.75 to 0.99; P = 0.03) and major bleeding (RR = 0.36; 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.89, P = 0.03), although it did not reduce the percentage of INR greater than 4, the risk of thromboembolic events and death from any cause. Subgroup analysis showed that PD resulted in a better improvement in the endpoints of TTR and over-anticoagulation at a fixed initial dosage rather than a non-fixed initial dosage.ConclusionsThe use of genotype testing in the management of warfarin anticoagulation was associated with significant improvements in INR-related and clinical outcomes. Thus, genotype-based regimens can be considered a reliable and accurate method to determine warfarin dosing and may be preferred over fixed-dose regimens.Trial registration prosperoDatabase registration: CRD42015024127.
| S-EPMC4682655 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of genetic tables and formal pharmacogenetic algorithms for warfarin dosing.Pharmacogenetic algorithms based on regression equations can predict warfarin dose, but they require detailed mathematical calculations. A simpler alternative, recently added to the warfarin label by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, is to use genotype-stratified tables to estimate warfarin dose. This table may potentially increase the use of pharmacogenetic warfarin dosing in clinical practice; however, its accuracy has not been quantified.A retrospective cohort study of 1,378 patients from 3 anticoagulation centers was conducted. Inclusion criteria were stable therapeutic warfarin dose and complete genetic and clinical data. Five dose prediction methods were compared: 2 methods using only clinical information (empiric 5 mg/day dosing and a formal clinical algorithm), 2 genetic tables (the new warfarin label table and a table based on mean dose stratified by genotype), and 1 formal pharmacogenetic algorithm, using both clinical and genetic information. For each method, the proportion of patients whose predicted doses were within 20% of their actual therapeutic doses was determined. Dosing methods were compared using McNemar's chi-square test.Warfarin dose prediction was significantly more accurate (all p < 0.001) with the pharmacogenetic algorithm (52%) than with all other methods: empiric dosing (37%; odds ratio [OR]: 2.2), clinical algorithm (39%; OR: 2.2), warfarin label (43%; OR: 1.8), and genotype mean dose table (44%; OR: 1.9).Although genetic tables predicted warfarin dose better than empiric dosing, formal pharmacogenetic algorithms were the most accurate.
| S-EPMC3107000 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Due to large dosage variation, a variety of warfarin prescription regimens are utilized for specific doses such as tablet splitting, or pill strength alternating. The clinical comparison between the two is lacking. We hypothesize that both approaches result in different times in therapeutic range. We randomized patients with specific warfarin dosage and stable INR for 6 months or longer to receive the whole tablet, alternate-day dosing or the split tablet, same daily-dosing regimen without initial dose change and followed them every 6 weeks for 6 months. The primary outcome was a time in therapeutic range of 2.0-3.0. The secondary outcomes included dosage, compliance, INR, anticoagulant-related events. A total of 66 patients were enrolled, 32 randomly assigned to the split tablet regimen (group S) and 34 to the alternate-day regimen (group A) with two withdrawers. The mean age was 58.6 ± 8.5 years. All baseline characteristics of both groups were similar. The average time in therapeutic range was 72.8 ± 25.4% in group S and 74.9 ± 22.0% in group A (p = 0.72). There were no significant differences in warfarin dosage, compliance, INR and, complications between the two groups. Both warfarin prescription methods, the split tablet and the alternate-day had comparable time in the therapeutic range.
| S-EPMC8674310 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite the introduction of direct acting oral anticoagulants, warfarin remains the most commonly prescribed oral anticoagulant. However, warfarin therapy is plagued by the large inter- and intrapatient variability. The variability in dosing fueled research to identify clinical and genetic predictors and develop more accurate dosing algorithms. Observational studies have demonstrated the significant impact of single nucleotide polymorphisms in CYP2C9 and VKORC1 on warfarin dose in patients of European ancestry and African-Americans. This evidence supported the design and conduct of clinical trials to assess whether genotype-guided dosing results in improved anticoagulation control and outcomes. The trial results have shown discordance by race, with pharmacogenetic algorithms improving dose and anticoagulation control among European ancestry patients compared with African-American patients. Herein, we review the evidence from observational and interventional studies, highlight the need for inclusion of minority race groups and propose the need to develop race specific dosing algorithms.
| S-EPMC6562764 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceWarfarin use accounts for more medication-related emergency department visits among older patients than any other drug. Whether genotype-guided warfarin dosing can prevent these adverse events is unknown.ObjectiveTo determine whether genotype-guided dosing improves the safety of warfarin initiation.Design, setting, and patientsThe randomized clinical Genetic Informatics Trial (GIFT) of Warfarin to Prevent Deep Vein Thrombosis included patients aged 65 years or older initiating warfarin for elective hip or knee arthroplasty and was conducted at 6 US medical centers. Enrollment began in April 2011 and follow-up concluded in October 2016.InterventionsPatients were genotyped for the following polymorphisms: VKORC1-1639G>A, CYP2C9*2, CYP2C9*3, and CYP4F2 V433M. In a 2 × 2 factorial design, patients were randomized to genotype-guided (n = 831) or clinically guided (n = 819) warfarin dosing on days 1 through 11 of therapy and to a target international normalized ratio (INR) of either 1.8 or 2.5. The recommended doses of warfarin were open label, but the patients and clinicians were blinded to study group assignment.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was the composite of major bleeding, INR of 4 or greater, venous thromboembolism, or death. Patients underwent a screening lower-extremity duplex ultrasound approximately 1 month after arthroplasty.ResultsAmong 1650 randomized patients (mean age, 72.1 years [SD, 5.4 years]; 63.6% women; 91.0% white), 1597 (96.8%) received at least 1 dose of warfarin therapy and completed the trial (n = 808 in genotype-guided group vs n = 789 in clinically guided group). A total of 87 patients (10.8%) in the genotype-guided group vs 116 patients (14.7%) in the clinically guided warfarin dosing group met at least 1 of the end points (absolute difference, 3.9% [95% CI, 0.7%-7.2%], P = .02; relative rate [RR], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.56-0.95]). The numbers of individual events in the genotype-guided group vs the clinically guided group were 2 vs 8 for major bleeding (RR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.05-1.15), 56 vs 77 for INR of 4 or greater (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51-0.99), 33 vs 38 for venous thromboembolism (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.54-1.34), and there were no deaths.Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients undergoing elective hip or knee arthroplasty and treated with perioperative warfarin, genotype-guided warfarin dosing, compared with clinically guided dosing, reduced the combined risk of major bleeding, INR of 4 or greater, venous thromboembolism, or death. Further research is needed to determine the cost-effectiveness of personalized warfarin dosing.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01006733.
| S-EPMC5818817 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Guided self-help treatments based on cognitive-behavior therapy (CBT-GSH) are efficacious for binge eating. With limited availability of CBT-GSH in the community, mobile technology offers a means to increase use of these interventions. The purpose of this study was to test the initial efficacy of Noom Monitor, a smartphone application designed to facilitate CBT-GSH (CBT-GSH?+?Noom), on study retention, adherence, and eating disorder symptoms compared to traditional CBT-GSH.Sixty-six men and women with DSM-5 binge-eating disorder (BED) or bulimia nervosa (BN) were randomized to receive eight sessions of CBT-GSH?+?Noom (n?=?33) or CBT-GSH (n?=?33) over 12 weeks. Primary symptom outcomes were eating disorder examination objective bulimic episodes (OBEs), subjective bulimic episodes (SBEs), and compensatory behaviors. Assessments were collected at 0, 4, 8, 12, 24, and 36 weeks. Behavioral outcomes were modeled using zero-inflated negative-binomial latent growth curve models with intent-to-treat.There was a significant effect of treatment on change in OBEs (??=?-0.84, 95% CI?=?-1.49, -0.19) favoring CBT-GSH?+?Noom. Remission rates were not statistically different between treatments for OBEs (?logit ?=?-0.73, 95% CI?=?-1.86, 3.27; CBT-GSH-Noom?=?17/27, 63.0% vs. CBT-GSH 11/27, 40.7%, NNT?=?4.5), but CBT-GSH-Noom participants reported greater meal and snack adherence and regular meal adherence mediated treatment effects on OBEs. The treatments did not differ at the 6-month follow-up.Smartphone applications for the treatment binge eating appear to have advantages for adherence, a critical component of treatment dissemination.
| S-EPMC5755703 | biostudies-literature