Comparison of Maintenance Dose Predictions by Warfarin Dosing Algorithms Based on Chinese and Western Patients

Comparative performance of pharmacogenetics-based warfarin dosing algorithms in Chinese population: use of a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model to explore dosing regimen through clinical trial simulation

OBJECTIVE

Warfarin has a narrow therapeutic window and large variability in dosing that are affected by clinical and genetic factors. To help guide the dosing of warfarin, the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium has recommended the use of pharmacogenetic algorithms, such as the ones developed by the International Warfarin Pharmacogenetics Consortium (IWPC) and by Gage et al. when genotype information is available.

METHODS

In this study, simulations were performed in Chinese cohorts to explore how dosing differences between Western (by IWPC and Gage et al.) and Chinese algorithms (by Miao et al.) would mean in terms of anticoagulation effect in clinical trials. We first tried to replicate a published clinical trial comparing genotype-guided dosing to routine clinical dosing in Chinese patients. We then made simulations where Chinese cohorts received daily doses recommended by Gage, IWPC, and Miao algorithms.

RESULTS

We found that in simulation conditions where dosing specifications were strictly followed, genotype-guided dosing by IWPC and Lenzini formulae was more likely to overshoot the upper limit of the therapeutic window by day 15, and thus may have a lower % time in therapeutic range (%TTR) than that of clinical dosing group. Also, in comparing Gage, IWPC, and Miao algorithms, we found that the Miao dosing cohort has the highest %TTR and the lowest risk of over-anticoagulation by day 28.

CONCLUSION

In summary, our results confirmed that algorithms developed based on data from local patients may be more suitable for achieving therapeutic international normalized ratio window in Chinese population.

Implementation of pre-emptive testing of a pharmacogenomic panel in clinical practice: Where do we stand?

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) account for a large proportion of hospitalizations among adults and are more common in multimorbid patients, worsening clinical outcomes and burdening healthcare resources. Over the past decade, pharmacogenomics has been developed as a practical tool for optimizing treatment outcomes by mitigating the risk of ADRs. Some single-gene reactive tests are already used in clinical practice, including the DPYD test for fluoropyrimidines, which demonstrates how integrating pharmacogenomic data into routine care can improve patient safety in a cost-effective manner. The evolution from reactive single-gene testing to comprehensive pre-emptive genotyping panels holds great potential for refining drug prescribing practices. Several implementation projects have been conducted to test the feasibility of applying different genetic panels in clinical practice. Recently, the results of a large prospective randomized trial in Europe (the PREPARE study by Ubiquitous Pharmacogenomics consortium) have provided the first evidence that prospective application of a pre-emptive pharmacogenomic test panel in clinical practice, in seven European healthcare systems, is feasible and yielded a 30% reduction in the risk of developing clinically relevant toxicities. Nevertheless, some important questions remain unanswered and will hopefully be addressed by future dedicated studies. These issues include the cost-effectiveness of applying a pre-emptive genotyping panel, the role of multiple co-medications, the transferability of currently tested pharmacogenetic guidelines among patients of non-European origin and the impact of rare pharmacogenetic variants that are not detected by currently used genotyping approaches.