Dataset Information

Genotype-guided warfarin dosing vs. conventional dosing strategies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Tse G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6089819 | biostudies-other | 2018 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Genotype-guided warfarin dosing vs. conventional dosing strategies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Tse Gary G Gong Mengqi M Li Guangping G Wong Sunny Hei SH Wu William K K WKK Wong Wing Tak WT Roever Leonardo L Lee Alex Pui Wai APW Lip Gregory Y H GYH Wong Martin C S MCS Liu Tong T

British journal of clinical pharmacology 20180621 9

<h4>Aims</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched up to 23 October 2017.<h4>Results</h4>A total of 76 and 94 entries were retrieved were retrieved from PubMed and the Cochrane Library, respectively. A total of 2626 subjects ...[more]

PMID: 29704269

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BACKGROUND: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. METHODS: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 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. RESULTS:Among 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%. CONCLUSIONS:Among 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 REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00700895 . Registered on June 19, 2008.

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.

Project description:BackgroundAfter discharge from hospital following a stroke, prescriptions of community-based rehabilitation are often downgraded to "maintenance" rehabilitation or discontinued. This classic therapeutic behavior stems from persistent confusion between lesion-induced plasticity, which lasts for the first 6 months essentially, and behavior-induced plasticity, of indefinite duration, through which intense rehabilitation might remain effective. This prospective, randomized, multicenter, single-blind study in subjects with chronic stroke-induced hemiparesis evaluates changes in active function with a Guided Self-rehabilitation Contract vs conventional therapy alone, pursued for a year.MethodsOne hundred and twenty four adult subjects with chronic hemiparesis (> 1 year since first stroke) will be included in six tertiary rehabilitation centers. For each patient, two treatments will be compared over a 1-year period, preceded and followed by an observational 6-month phase of conventional rehabilitation. In the experimental group, the therapist will implement the diary-based and antagonist-targeting Guided Self-rehabilitation Contract method using two monthly home visits. The method involves: i) prescribing a daily antagonist-targeting self-rehabilitation program, ii) teaching the techniques involved in the program, iii) motivating and guiding the patient over time, by requesting a diary of the work achieved to be brought back by the patient at each visit. In the control group, participants will benefit from conventional therapy only, as per their physician's prescription. The two co-primary outcome measures are the maximal ambulation speed barefoot over 10 m for the lower limb, and the Modified Frenchay Scale for the upper limb. Secondary outcome measures include total cost of care from the medical insurance point of view, physiological cost index in the 2-min walking test, quality of life (SF 36) and measures of the psychological impact of the two treatment modalities. Participants will be evaluated every 6 months (D1/M6/M12/M18/M24) by a blinded investigator, the experimental period being between M6 and M18. Each patient will be allowed to receive any medications deemed necessary to their attending physician, including botulinum toxin injections.DiscussionThis study will increase the level of knowledge on the effects of Guided Self-rehabilitation Contracts in patients with chronic stroke-induced hemiparesis.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02202954 , July 29, 2014.

Project description:Warfarin is the most common oral anticoagulant. Because of a narrow therapeutic range, interindividual differences in drug responses, and the risk of bleeding, there are many challenges in using warfarin. We need to predict the warfarin maintenance dose. However, ethnic-specific algorithms may be required, and some Chinese algorithms do not perform adequately. Therefore, we aimed to establish a Han Chinese appropriate algorithm.We recruited a study group consisting of 361 Han Chinese patients receiving warfarin treatment who had heart valve replacements. Genotyping of 38 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in 13 candidate genes was carried out using the MassARRAY. In the derivation cohort, a multiple linear regression model was constructed to predict the warfarin dosage. We evaluated the accuracy of our algorithm in the validation cohort and compared it with the other 5 algorithms based on Han Chinese and other races.We established a Han Chinese-specific pharmacogenetic-guided warfarin dosing algorithm. Warfarin maintenance dosage (mg/day) = 1.787 - 0.023 × (Age) + 1.151 × (BSA [m]) + 0.917 × (VKORC1 AG) + 4.619 × (VKORC1 GG) + 0.595 × (CYP4F2 TT) + 0.707 × (CYP2C19 CC). It explained 58.3% of the variance in warfarin doses in Han Chinese patients and was superior to the other 5 algorithms. The ability of the 6 algorithms which estimate the required dose correctly was tested. Our model had a mean absolute error of 0.74?mg/day, the other 5 models have mean absolute error of 0.81?mg/day,1.05?mg/day, 1.24?mg/day, 1.18?mg/day, and 0.85?mg/day, respectively. Our model had a mean percentage error of 26.9%, the other 5 models have the mean percentage error of 27.7%, 27.2%, 52.3%, 45.7%, and 29.3%, respectively.Physicians can not adopt algorithm from other race directly to predict warfarin dose in patients with heart valve replacements, they should establish a new algorithm or adjust another algorithm to fit their patients. The algorithm established in this study has the potential to assist physicians in determining warfarin doses that are close to the appropriate doses.

Dataset Information

Genotype-guided warfarin dosing vs. conventional dosing strategies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Publications

Genotype-guided warfarin dosing vs. conventional dosing strategies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets