Validation of patient-reported warfarin dose in a prospective incident cohort study

Pillbox Use and INR Stability in a Prospective Cohort of New Warfarin Users

BACKGROUND

Warfarin, a frequently prescribed oral anticoagulant, is well known for its narrow therapeutic index. Adherence to warfarin may help to achieve a stable international normalized ratio (INR), but little data are available regarding the impact of using a pillbox as a potential adherence aid device.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association between pillbox use and time in therapeutic range (TTR) < 60% and INR instability pattern.

METHODS

This study was based on a prospective cohort of 1,069 new warfarin users who initiated warfarin between May 2010 and July 2013 within 17 hospitals in Quebec, Canada. Demographic, lifestyle, and clinical data were collected for 3 months to a year after warfarin initiation, and genetic factors were assessed. Patients usingh self-prepared and pharmacist-prepared pillboxes were compared with nonusers for the 3- to 12-month follow-up period. The primary outcome was a TTR < 60%, which represents a low percentage of time in the INR therapeutic range or an unstable patient. The secondary outcome was the INR instability pattern (unstable below range; unstable over range; unstable with erratic pattern; and stable) to better describe patient INR profiles. A multivariate generalized linear mixed model was used for the primary outcome, along with a multivariate multinomial linear mixed model for the secondary outcome.

RESULTS

The cohort included patients with a mean age of 70.4 ± 11.7 years; 61.8% of patients were men; 76.3% had atrial fibrillation as warfarin's primary indication; and 35.6% had a previous history of myocardial infarction or angina. Self-prepared and pharmacist-prepared pillbox use was not associated with TTR < 60% or a specific INR instability pattern. A sensitivity analysis showed that self-prepared pillbox users had a higher TTR than nonusers (3.55% ± 1.69%; P = 0.036). This effect was greater among patients aged < 70 years (5.48% ± 2.50%; P = 0.029) than among older patients (1.92% ± 2.31%; P =0.406).

CONCLUSIONS

Pillbox use was not associated with TTR < 60% or a specific INR instability pattern. The impact of self-prepared pillbox use was greater among younger patients, but results were not clinically significant. Future studies adjusting for concomitant drug use are needed to clarify these results.

DISCLOSURES

This study was funded by Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and the Centre for Excellence in Personalised Medicine. Both funding sources were not involved in the design, conduct, and reporting of this study. The data used for this study came from the Quebec Warfarin Cohort Study (QWCS), which was supported by the CIHR and the Centre for Excellence in Personalised Medicine. Dumas received a doctoral training award from the CIHR. Perreault and Dubé received a salary award from the Fonds Québécois de Recherche en Santé. Study concept and design were contributed by Talajic, Tardif, Dubé, and Perreault. Dumas, Rouleau-Mailloux, Bouchama, and Lahcene collected the data, which was interpreted by Dumas, Dubé, and Perreault. The manuscript was written and revised by Dumas, Dubé, and Perreault.

Impact of regular physical activity on weekly warfarin dose requirement

Warfarin is an oral anticoagulant agent with a narrow therapeutic index. There is a marked inter- and intra-patient variability in warfarin dose requirement. All factors influencing warfarin response are not known and this study aims to evaluate if regular physical activity (RPA) is a determining factor. RPA level was collected with the Stanford Brief Activity Survey in 1064 incident warfarin users, as part of the Quebec Warfarin Cohort (QWC), and with the Global Physical Activity Questionnaire in 618 patients from the Montreal Heart Institute (MHI) Biobank. Linear regression was performed to model relationship of warfarin dose after 3 months of therapy in the QWC with RPA, while controlling for height, weight, age, CYP2C9 (*2 and *3 alleles) and VKORC1 (*2 allele) genotype. Warfarin dose of prevalent users was modeled in the MHI Biobank for replication. A higher level of physical activity was associated with higher doses of warfarin in both cohorts. In the QWC, physical activity could explain 5.4 % (P < 0.001) and 0.9 % (P = 3.23 × 10⁻⁵) of variance in dose, in univariate and multivariable models, respectively. Similarly, RPA was found to be associated with 1.7 % (P = 0.0012) and 0.5 % (P = 0.0391) of inter-individual variability in warfarin dose requirement before and after adjustment for other covariables, respectively. RPA is associated with higher warfarin dose requirement. The relevance of clinical recommendations on RPA to maintain a steady response to warfarin should be assessed in further studies.

An expanded pharmacogenomics warfarin dosing table with utility in generalised dosing guidance

Pharmacogenomics (PGx) guided warfarin dosing, using a comprehensive dosing algorithm, is expected to improve dose optimisation and lower the risk of adverse drug reactions. As a complementary tool, a simple genotype-dosing table, such as in the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Coumadin drug label, may be utilised for general risk assessment of likely over- or under-anticoagulation on a standard dose of warfarin. This tool may be used as part of the clinical decision support for the interpretation of genetic data, serving as a first step in the anticoagulation therapy decision making process. Here we used a publicly available warfarin dosing calculator (www.warfarindosing.org) to create an expanded gene-based warfarin dosing table, the CPMC-WD table that includes nine genetic variants in CYP2C9, VKORC1, and CYP4F2. Using two datasets, a European American cohort (EUA, n=73) and the Quebec Warfarin Cohort (QWC, n=769), we show that the CPMC-WD table more accurately predicts therapeutic dose than the FDA table (51 % vs 33 %, respectively, in the EUA, McNemar's two-sided p=0.02; 52 % vs 37 % in the QWC, p<1×10(-6)). It also outperforms both the standard of care 5 mg/day dosing (51 % vs 34 % in the EUA, p=0.04; 52 % vs 31 % in the QWC, p<1×10(-6)) as well as a clinical-only algorithm (51 % vs 38 % in the EUA, trend p=0.11; 52 % vs 45 % in the QWC, p=0.003). This table offers a valuable update to the PGx dosing guideline in the drug label.