The effectiveness of split tablet dosing versus alternate-day dosing of warfarin: a randomized control trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kaewsaengeak C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8674310 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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: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:BackgroundThe clinical utility of genotype-guided (pharmacogenetically based) dosing of warfarin has been tested only in small clinical trials or observational studies, with equivocal results.MethodsWe randomly assigned 1015 patients to receive doses of warfarin during the first 5 days of therapy that were determined according to a dosing algorithm that included both clinical variables and genotype data or to one that included clinical variables only. All patients and clinicians were unaware of the dose of warfarin during the first 4 weeks of therapy. The primary outcome was the percentage of time that the international normalized ratio (INR) was in the therapeutic range from day 4 or 5 through day 28 of therapy.ResultsAt 4 weeks, the mean percentage of time in the therapeutic range was 45.2% in the genotype-guided group and 45.4% in the clinically guided group (adjusted mean difference, [genotype-guided group minus clinically guided group], -0.2; 95% confidence interval, -3.4 to 3.1; P=0.91). There also was no significant between-group difference among patients with a predicted dose difference between the two algorithms of 1 mg per day or more. There was, however, a significant interaction between dosing strategy and race (P=0.003). Among black patients, the mean percentage of time in the therapeutic range was less in the genotype-guided group than in the clinically guided group. The rates of the combined outcome of any INR of 4 or more, major bleeding, or thromboembolism did not differ significantly according to dosing strategy.ConclusionsGenotype-guided dosing of warfarin did not improve anticoagulation control during the first 4 weeks of therapy. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; COAG ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00839657.).
| S-EPMC3942158 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study evaluates the efficacy, safety and tolerability of NER1006 versus MOVIPREP in adult patients requiring bowel cleansing prior to any procedure that requires a clean bowel, using a 2-Day evening/morning Split-Dosing and 1-Day morning only Split-Dosing regimens. Approximately 810 patients will be randomised with the aim of achieving a minimum of 245 patients in each of the 3 groups.
| 2176918 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:Oral iron is the mainstay of treating iron deficiency anemia. Recent studies indicate better fractional iron absorption with alternate day supplementation. However, the optimal supplementation strategy is unclear. We compared effectiveness of daily versus alternate day supplementation of oral iron for treatment of iron deficiency anemia. This double blind, active control, randomized controlled trial was conducted on two hundred adults having hemoglobin 10 g/dL or less with microcytic hypochromic anemia and/or serum ferritin below 50 ng/mL. They were randomized to receive either two Ferrous sulfate tablets containing 60 mg elemental iron (120 mg total) on alternate days or single tablet of 60 mg elemental iron daily for 8 weeks. Primary outcome was mean change in hemoglobin at week 8 from baseline. Mean hemoglobin was 6.53 (± 1.89) and 6.68 (± 1.89) g/dL in the alternate day and daily arms respectively. Mean change in hemoglobin was + 1.05 ± 1.34 g/dL in alternate day arm and + 1.36 ± 1.51 g/dL in daily arm (p = 0.47) at week 8. There were no statistically significant differences between the arms with respect to any secondary outcome. There is no significant difference between alternate day and daily iron administration in improving hemoglobin. Randomized controlled trials enrolling more participants for longer periods of supplementation and evaluating clinically relevant outcomes like change in hemoglobin may be useful in identifying the ideal dosing strategy.Trial Registration: Clinical Trial Registry of India (CTRI/2019/01/017169).
| S-EPMC9892593 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGenotype-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.MethodsAn 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 the number of dose titrations within the first 2 weeks of therapy, with a mean non-inferiority margin of 0.5 over the first 14 days of therapy.ResultsAmong 322 randomized patients, 269 were evaluable for the primary endpoint. Compared with traditional dosing, the genotype-guided group required fewer dose titrations during the first 2 weeks (1.77 vs. 2.93, difference -1.16, 90% CI -1.48 to -0.84, P < 0.001 for both non-inferiority and superiority). The percentage of time within the therapeutic range over 3 months and median time to stable international normalized ratio (INR) did not differ between the genotype-guided and traditional dosing groups. The frequency of dose titrations (incidence rate ratio 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.86, P = 0.001), but not frequency of INR measurements, was lower at 1, 2, and 3 months in the genotype-guided group. The proportions of patients who experienced minor or major bleeding, recurrent venous thromboembolism, or out-of-range INR did not differ between both arms. For predicting maintenance doses, the pharmacogenetic algorithm achieved an R2 = 42.4% (P < 0.001) and mean percentage error of -7.4%.ConclusionsAmong Asian adults commencing warfarin therapy, a pharmacogenetic algorithm meets criteria for both non-inferiority and superiority in reducing dose titrations compared with a traditional dosing approach, and performs well in prediction of actual maintenance doses. These findings imply that clinicians may consider applying a pharmacogenetic algorithm to personalize initial warfarin dosages in Asian patients.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00700895 . Registered on June 19, 2008.
| S-EPMC6038204 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In iron-depleted women without anemia, oral iron supplements induce an increase in serum hepcidin (SHep) that persists for 24 hours, decreasing iron absorption from supplements given later on the same or next day. Consequently, iron absorption from supplements is highest if iron is given on alternate days. Whether this dosing schedule is also beneficial in women with iron-deficiency anemia (IDA) given high-dose iron supplements is uncertain. The primary objective of this study was to assess whether, in women with IDA, alternate-day administration of 100 and 200 mg iron increases iron absorption compared to consecutive-day iron administration. Secondary objectives were to correlate iron absorption with SHep and iron status parameters. We performed a cross-over iron absorption study in women with IDA (n=19; median hemoglobin 11.5 mg/dL; mean serum ferritin 10 mg/L) who received either 100 or 200 mg iron as ferrous sulfate given at 8 AM on days 2, 3 and 5 labeled with stable iron isotopes 57Fe, 58Fe and 54Fe; after a 16-day incorporation period, the other labeled dose was given at 8 AM on days 23, 24 and 26 (days 2, 3 and 5 of the second period). Iron absorption on days 2 and 3 (consecutive) and day 5 (alternate) was assessed by measuring erythrocyte isotope incorporation. For both doses, SHep was higher on day 3 than on day 2 (P<0.001) or day 5 (P<0.01) with no significant difference between days 2 and 5. Similarly, for both doses, fractional iron absorption (FIA) on days 2 and 5 was 40-50% higher than on day 3 (P<0.001), while absorption on day 2 did not differ significantly from day 5. There was no significant difference in the incidence of gastrointestinal side effects comparing the two iron doses (P=0.105). Alternate day dosing of oral iron supplements in anemic women may be preferable because it sharply increases FIA. If needed, to provide the same total amount of iron with alternate day dosing, twice the daily target dose should be given on alternate days, as total iron absorption from a single dose of 200 mg given on alternate days was approximately twice that from 100 mg given on consecutive days (P<0.001). In IDA, even if hepatic hepcidin expression is strongly suppressed by iron deficiency and erythropoietic drive, the intake of oral iron supplements leads to an acute hepcidin increase for 24 hours. The study was funded by ETH Zürich, Switzerland. This study has been registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03623997.
| S-EPMC7193469 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:Dosing algorithms for warfarin incorporate clinical and genetic factors but may not account for the numerous comorbidities affecting patients who start warfarin while hospitalized. We aimed to determine whether these algorithms perform differently when warfarin is initiated for inpatients compared with outpatients. PATIENTS AND METHODS:We analyzed a prospective cohort of 1015 participants from the Clarification of Optimal Anticoagulation through Genetics (COAG) trial who were randomized to either pharmacogenetically or clinically guided warfarin dosing algorithms. Clinicians and participants were blinded to dose during the first 28 days. We compared groups, based on location at the time of the first warfarin dose request, in relation to the following outcomes: percentage of time in the therapeutic international normalized ratio (INR) range (PTTR) during the first 4 weeks, time to first therapeutic INR, time to maintenance dose, and the difference between predicted and observed maintenance doses. RESULTS:A total of 527 participants started warfarin as inpatients and 488 as outpatients. There was no difference in PTTR based on location: 43.2 % for inpatient versus 47.4 % for outpatient initiation [mean adjusted difference -2.2 %; 95 % confidence interval (CI) -5.9 to 1.6]. Similarly, there were no differences in time to first therapeutic INR [hazard ratio (HR) 1.06; 95 % CI 0.91-1.24] or to maintenance dose (HR 0.96; 95 % CI 0.81-1.14). There was no evidence of interaction between study intervention (pharmacogenetically vs. clinically guided therapy) and location of initiation for these main outcomes. The difference between predicted and observed maintenance doses was similar for both locations. CONCLUSION:The warfarin dosing algorithms performed similarly for subjects who initiated warfarin as inpatients and outpatients, regardless of whether dosing was pharmacogenetically or clinically guided.
| S-EPMC4508217 | biostudies-literature
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: Not available
| S-EPMC9991905 | biostudies-literature