Safe introduction of warfarin for thrombotic prophylaxis in atrial fibrillation requiring only a weekly INR

Optimal loading dose of warfarin for the initiation of oral anticoagulation

BACKGROUND

Warfarin is used as an oral anticoagulant. However, there is wide variation in patient response to warfarin dose. This variation, as well as the necessity of keeping within a narrow therapeutic range, means that selection of the correct warfarin dose at the outset of treatment is not straightforward.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of different initiation doses of warfarin in terms of time in-range, time to INR in-range and effect on serious adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, DARE and the NHS Health economics database on The Cochrane Library (2012, Issue 4); MEDLINE (1950 to April 2012) and EMBASE (1974 to April 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials which compared different initiation regimens of warfarin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion. Authors also assessed the risk of bias and extracted data from the included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 12 studies of patients commencing warfarin for inclusion in the review. The overall risk of bias was found to be variable, with most studies reporting adequate methods for randomisation but only two studies reporting adequate data on allocation concealment. Four studies (355 patients) compared 5 mg versus 10 mg loading doses. All four studies reported INR in-range by day five. Although there was notable heterogeneity, pooling of these four studies showed no overall difference between 5 mg versus 10 mg loading doses (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.77, P = 0.46, I(2) = 83%). Two of these studies used two consecutive INRs in-range as the outcome and showed no difference between a 5 mg and 10 mg dose by day five (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.19, P = 0.37, I(2 )= 22%); two other studies used a single INR in-range as the outcome and showed a benefit for the 10 mg initiation dose by day 5 (RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.21, P = 0.05, I(2 )= 72%). Two studies compared a 5 mg dose to other doses: a 2.5 mg initiation dose took longer to achieve the therapeutic range (2.7 versus 2.0 days; P < 0.0001), but those receiving a calculated initiation dose achieved a target range quicker (4.2 days versus 5 days, P = 0.007). Two studies compared age adjusted doses to 10 mg initiation doses. More elderly patients receiving an age adjusted dose achieved a stable INR compared to those receiving a 10 mg initial dose (and Fennerty regimen). Four studies used genotype guided dosing in one arm of each trial. Three studies reported no overall differences; the fourth study, which reported that the genotype group spent significantly more time in-range (P < 0.001), had a control group whose INRs were significantly lower than expected. No clear impacts from adverse events were found in either arm to make an overall conclusion.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The studies in this review compared loading doses in several different situations. There is still considerable uncertainty between the use of a 5 mg and a 10 mg loading dose for the initiation of warfarin. In the elderly, there is some evidence that lower initiation doses or age adjusted doses are more appropriate, leading to fewer high INRs. However, there is insufficient evidence to warrant genotype guided initiation.

The health care setting rather than medical speciality impacts on physicians adherence to guideline-conform anticoagulation in outpatients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a cross sectional survey

Background

In patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) at high risk for stroke guidelines consistently recommend long-term oral anticoagulation (OAC) with a vitamin K antagonist. However recommendations remain ambiguous in respect to the precise OAC initiation regimens. Based on the clinical observation, that the initiation of OAC for NVAF varies considerably in daily practice, we aimed to assess the current practice in Switzerland.

Methods

Cross-sectional survey of randomly selected general practitioners, internists and cardiologists from different health care settings in an urban Swiss region that covers 1.4 million inhabitants. The main outcome measures were the preferred antithrombotic initiation regimen and long-term treatment in patients with newly diagnosed NVAF at high risk for stroke.

Results

We received 226 out of 388 (58.2%) surveys. Compared to physicians working in a hospital setting (33.6% of respondents) physicians in ambulatory care reported more years of experience and claimed lower-use (never or seldom) of guidelines in general (47.6 vs. 12.2%). Regarding long-term thromboembolic prophylaxis 93.7% of all responders followed current recommendation by choosing an OAC. When focussing on guideline-consistent correct OAC initiation (either low-dose initial OAC or a combination of LMWH and OAC) adherence dropped to 60.6% with hospital physicians demonstrating a significantly higher use of guideline-conform OAC regimens (79.7 vs. 51.0%). Medical speciality in non-hospital physicians was not related to correct guideline-use. Hospital setting remained independently associated with a guideline-conform OAC initiation regimen (OR 2.8, p = 0.023) when controlled for medical speciality, physicians' characteristics and clinical experience. Problems when starting an anticoagulation treatment were seldom reported (never or seldom accounting for 94.1% of all responses).

Conclusions

The guideline adherence with respect to OAC initiation regimens in NVAF was significantly lower when compared to long-term treatment and health care setting rather than medical speciality explained guideline-conform OAC initiation. The majority of the physicians did not consider the initiation of anticoagulation to be a major obstacle in outpatient care.

Ability of VKORC1 and CYP2C9 to predict therapeutic warfarin dose during the initial weeks of therapy

BACKGROUND

CYP2C9 and VKORC1 genotypes predict therapeutic warfarin dose at initiation of therapy; however, the predictive ability of genetic information after a week or longer is unknown. Experts have hypothesized that genotype becomes irrelevant once international normalized ratio (INR) values are available because INR response reflects warfarin sensitivity.

METHODS

We genotyped the participants in the Prevention of Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism (PREVENT) trial, who had idiopathic venous thromboemboli and began low-intensity warfarin (therapeutic INR 1.5-2.0) using a standard dosing protocol. To develop pharmacogenetic models, we quantified the effect of genotypes, clinical factors, previous doses and INR on therapeutic warfarin dose in the 223 PREVENT participants who were randomized to warfarin and achieved stable therapeutic INRs.

RESULTS

A pharmacogenetic model using data from day 0 (before therapy initiation) explained 54% of the variability in therapeutic dose (R(2)). The R(2) increased to 68% at day 7, 75% at day 14, and 77% at day 21, because of increasing contributions from prior doses and INR response. Although CYP2C9 and VKORC1 genotypes were significant independent predictors of therapeutic dose at each weekly interval, the magnitude of their predictive ability diminished over time: partial R(2) of genotype was 43% at day 0, 12% at day 7, 4% at day 14, and 1% at day 21.

CONCLUSION

Over the first weeks of warfarin therapy, INR and prior dose become increasingly predictive of therapeutic dose, and genotype becomes less relevant. However, at day 7, genotype remains clinically relevant, accounting for 12% of therapeutic dose variability.