A prediction study of warfarin individual stable dose after mechanical heart valve replacement: adaptive neural-fuzzy inference system prediction

Warfarin-A natural anticoagulant: A review of research trends for precision medication

BACKGROUND

Warfarin is a widely prescribed anticoagulant in the clinic. It has a more considerable individual variability, and many factors affect its variability. Mathematical models can quantify the quantitative impact of these factors on individual variability.

PURPOSE

The aim is to comprehensively analyze the advanced warfarin dosing algorithm based on pharmacometrics and machine learning models of personalized warfarin dosage.

METHODS

A bibliometric analysis of the literature retrieved from PubMed and Scopus was performed using VOSviewer. The relevant literature that reported the precise dosage of warfarin calculation was retrieved from the database. The multiple linear regression (MLR) algorithm was excluded because a recent systematic review that mainly reviewed this algorithm has been reported. The following terms of quantitative systems pharmacology, mechanistic model, physiologically based pharmacokinetic model, artificial intelligence, machine learning, pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and warfarin were added as MeSH Terms or appearing in Title/Abstract into query box of PubMed, then humans and English as filter were added to retrieve the literature.

RESULTS

Bibliometric analysis revealed important co-occuring MeShH and index keywords. Further, the United States, China, and the United Kingdom were among the top countries contributing in this domain. Some studies have established personalized warfarin dosage models using pharmacometrics and machine learning-based algorithms. There were 54 related studies, including 14 pharmacometric models, 31 artificial intelligence models, and 9 model evaluations. Each model has its advantages and disadvantages. The pharmacometric model contains biological or pharmacological mechanisms in structure. The process of pharmacometric model development is very time- and labor-intensive. Machine learning is a purely data-driven approach; its parameters are more mathematical and have less biological interpretation. However, it is faster, more efficient, and less time-consuming. Most published models of machine learning algorithms were established based on cross-sectional data sourced from the database.

CONCLUSION

Future research on personalized warfarin medication should focus on combining the advantages of machine learning and pharmacometrics algorithms to establish a more robust warfarin dosage algorithm. Randomized controlled trials should be performed to evaluate the established algorithm of warfarin dosage. Moreover, a more user-friendly and accessible warfarin precision medicine platform should be developed.

Predicting Therapeutic Response to Unfractionated Heparin Therapy: Machine Learning Approach

Background

Unfractionated heparin (UFH) is an anticoagulant drug that is considered a high-risk medication because an excessive dose can cause bleeding, whereas an insufficient dose can lead to a recurrent embolic event. Therapeutic response to the initiation of intravenous UFH is monitored using activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) as a measure of blood clotting time. Clinicians iteratively adjust the dose of UFH toward a target, indication-defined therapeutic aPTT range using nomograms, but this process can be imprecise and can take ≥36 hours to achieve the target range. Thus, a more efficient approach is required.

Objective

In this study, we aimed to develop and validate a machine learning (ML) algorithm to predict aPTT within 12 hours after a specified bolus and maintenance dose of UFH.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study of 3019 patient episodes of care from January 2017 to August 2020 using data collected from electronic health records of 5 hospitals in Queensland, Australia. Data from 4 hospitals were used to build and test ensemble models using cross-validation, whereas data from the fifth hospital were used for external validation. We built 2 ML models: a regression model to predict the aPTT value after a UFH bolus dose and a multiclass model to predict the aPTT, classified as subtherapeutic (aPTT <70 seconds), therapeutic (aPTT 70-100 seconds), or supratherapeutic (aPTT >100 seconds). Modeling was performed using Driverless AI (H2O), an automated ML tool, and 17 different experiments were iteratively conducted to optimize model accuracy.

Results

In predicting aPTT, the best performing model was an ensemble with 4x LightGBM models with a root mean square error of 31.35 (SD 1.37). In predicting the aPTT class using a repurposed data set, the best performing ensemble model achieved an accuracy of 0.599 (SD 0.0289) and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.735. External validation yielded similar results: root mean square error of 30.52 (SD 1.29) for the aPTT prediction model, and accuracy of 0.568 (SD 0.0315) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.724 for the aPTT multiclassification model.

Conclusions

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first ML model applied to intravenous UFH dosing that has been developed and externally validated in a multisite adult general medical and surgical inpatient setting. We present the processes of data collection, preparation, and feature engineering for replication.

Nonlinear Machine Learning in Warfarin Dose Prediction: Insights from Contemporary Modelling Studies

Objective: This study aimed to systematically assess the characteristics and risk of bias of previous studies that have investigated nonlinear machine learning algorithms for warfarin dose prediction. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Biology Medicine (CBM), China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), and Wanfang Database up to March 2022. We assessed the general characteristics of the included studies with respect to the participants, predictors, model development, and model evaluation. The methodological quality of the studies was determined, and the risk of bias was evaluated using the Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Results: From a total of 8996 studies, 23 were assessed in this study, of which 23 (100%) were retrospective, and 11 studies focused on the Asian population. The most common demographic and clinical predictors were age (21/23, 91%), weight (17/23, 74%), height (12/23, 52%), and amiodarone combination (11/23, 48%), while CYP2C9 (14/23, 61%), VKORC1 (14/23, 61%), and CYP4F2 (5/23, 22%) were the most common genetic predictors. Of the included studies, the MAE ranged from 1.47 to 10.86 mg/week in model development studies, from 2.42 to 5.18 mg/week in model development with external validation (same data) studies, from 12.07 to 17.59 mg/week in model development with external validation (another data) studies, and from 4.40 to 4.84 mg/week in model external validation studies. All studies were evaluated as having a high risk of bias. Factors contributing to the risk of bias include inappropriate exclusion of participants (10/23, 43%), small sample size (15/23, 65%), poor handling of missing data (20/23, 87%), and incorrect method of selecting predictors (8/23, 35%). Conclusions: Most studies on nonlinear-machine-learning-based warfarin prediction models show poor methodological quality and have a high risk of bias. The analysis domain is the major contributor to the overall high risk of bias. External validity and model reproducibility are lacking in most studies. Future studies should focus on external validity, diminish risk of bias, and enhance real-world clinical relevance.

Warfarin maintenance dose prediction for Chinese after heart valve replacement by a feedforward neural network with equal stratified sampling

Patients requiring low-dose warfarin are more likely to suffer bleeding due to overdose. The goal of this work is to improve the feedforward neural network model's precision in predicting the low maintenance dose for Chinese in the aspect of training data construction. We built the model from a resampled dataset created by equal stratified sampling (maintaining the same sample number in three dose-groups with a total of 3639) and performed internal and external validations. Comparing to the model trained from the raw dataset of 19,060 eligible cases, we improved the low-dose group's ideal prediction percentage from 0.7 to 9.6% and maintained the overall performance (76.4% vs. 75.6%) in external validation. We further built neural network models on single-dose subsets to invest whether the subsets samples were sufficient and whether the selected factors were appropriate. The training set sizes were 1340 and 1478 for the low and high dose subsets; the corresponding ideal prediction percentages were 70.2% and 75.1%. The training set size for the intermediate dose varied and was 1553, 6214, and 12,429; the corresponding ideal prediction percentages were 95.6, 95.1%, and 95.3%. Our conclusion is that equal stratified sampling can be a considerable alternative approach in training data construction to build drug dosing models in the clinic.

An Adapted Neural-Fuzzy Inference System Model Using Preprocessed Balance Data to Improve the Predictive Accuracy of Warfarin Maintenance Dosing in Patients After Heart Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

Tailoring warfarin use poses a challenge for physicians and pharmacists due to its narrow therapeutic window and substantial inter-individual variability. This study aimed to create an adapted neural-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) model using preprocessed balance data to improve the predictive accuracy of warfarin maintenance dosing in Chinese patients undergoing heart valve replacement (HVR).

METHODS

This retrospective study enrolled patients who underwent HVR between June 1, 2012, and June 1, 2016, from 35 centers in China. The primary outcomes were the mean difference between predicted warfarin dose by ANFIS models and actual dose and the models' predictive accuracy, including the ideal predicted percentage, the mean absolute error (MAE), and the mean squared error (MSE). The eligible cases were divided into training, internal validation, and external validation groups. We explored input variables by univariate analysis of a general linear model and created two ANFIS models using imbalanced and balanced training sets. We finally compared the primary outcomes between the imbalanced and balanced ANFIS models in both internal and external validation sets. Stratified analyses were conducted across warfarin doses (low, medium, and high doses).

RESULTS

A total of 15,108 patients were included and grouped as follows: 12,086 in the imbalanced training set; 2820 in the balanced training set; 1511 in the internal validation set; and 1511 in the external validation set. Eight variables were explored as predictors related to warfarin maintenance doses, and imbalanced and balanced ANFIS models with multi-fuzzy rules were developed. The results showed a low mean difference between predicted and actual doses (< 0.3 mg/d for each model) and an accurate prediction property in both the imbalanced model (ideal prediction percentage, 74.39-78.16%; MAE, 0.37 mg/daily; MSE, 0.39 mg/daily) and the balanced model (ideal prediction percentage, 73.46-75.31%; MAE, 0.42 mg/daily; MSE, 0.43 mg/daily). Compared to the imbalanced model, the balanced model had a significantly higher prediction accuracy in the low-dose (14.46% vs. 3.01%; P < 0.001) and the high-dose warfarin groups (34.71% vs. 23.14%; P = 0.047). The results from the external validation cohort confirmed this finding.

CONCLUSIONS

The ANFIS model can accurately predict the warfarin maintenance dose in patients after HVR. Through data preprocessing, the balanced model contributed to improved prediction ability in the low- and high-dose warfarin groups.

Effectiveness of the Alfalfa App in Warfarin Therapy Management for Patients Undergoing Venous Thrombosis Prevention and Treatment: Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Over the years, the internet has enabled considerable progress in the management of chronic diseases, especially hypertension and diabetes. It also provides novel opportunities in online anticoagulation management. Nevertheless, there is insufficient evidence regarding the effectiveness of online anticoagulation management.

OBJECTIVE

This study explored the effectiveness and safety of warfarin management via the Alfalfa app, so as to provide evidence in support of anticoagulant management through online services.

METHODS

In this retrospective, observational cohort study, 824 patients were included. In the offline group, patients went to the hospital clinic for warfarin management. In the Alfalfa app group, patients reported the dose of warfarin, current international normalized ratio (INR) value, and other related information through the Alfalfa app. Physicians or pharmacists used the app to adjust the dose of warfarin and determined the time for the next blood INR testing. Patients completed INR testing by point-of-care at home or hospital. The primary outcome of the study was the percentage of time in therapeutic range (TTR). Secondary outcomes included minor and major bleeding events, thrombotic events, warfarin-related emergency department visits, hospital admissions, and high INR values.

RESULTS

The TTR and percentage of INR values in the range were significantly higher in the Alfalfa app group than in the offline group (79.35% vs 52.38%, P<.001; 3314/4282, 77.39% vs 2005/4202, 47.72%, P<.001, respectively). Patients managed via the Alfalfa app had lower rates of subtherapeutic (172/4282, 4.02% vs 388/4202, 9.23%; P<.001), supratherapeutic (487/4282, 11.37% vs 882/4202, 20.99%; P<.001), and extreme subtherapeutic INR values (290/4282, 6.77% vs 910/4202, 21.66%; P<.001). Additionally, the Alfalfa app group had lower incidences of major bleeding (2/425, 0.5% vs 12/399, 3.0%; P=.005), warfarin-related emergency department visits (13/425, 3.1% vs 37/399, 9.3%; P<.001), and hospital admissions (1/425, 0.2% vs 12/399, 3.0%; P=.001) compared with the offline group. However, the Alfalfa app group had a higher incidence of minor bleeding than the offline group (45/425, 10.6% vs 20/399, 5.0%; P=.003). There were similar incidences in extreme supratherapeutic INR values (19/4282, 0.44% vs 17/4202, 0.40%; P=.78) and thromboembolic events (1/425, 0.2% vs 1/399, 0.3%; P=.53) between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Warfarin management is superior via the Alfalfa app than via offline services in terms of major bleeding events, warfarin-related emergency department visits, and hospital admissions.

Effect of Gene-Based Warfarin Dosing on Anticoagulation Control and Clinical Events in a Real-World Setting

The cytochrome P450 2C9 and vitamin K epoxide reductase complex subunit 1 genotypes are associated with anticoagulation control and the clinical events in warfarin therapy. However, the clinical utility of gene-based warfarin dosing (GBWD) is controversial. We compared the anticoagulation control and clinical events related to warfarin with GBWD to those with clinically fixed dosing (CFD). A retrospective cohort study was conducted in a real-world setting. Of the 915 patients who were reviewed, 844 patients met the study-entry criteria; 413 cases were guided by GBWD using the International Warfarin Pharmacogenetic Consortium algorithm; 431 cases were guided by CFD (2.5 mg/day). The primary outcomes were the time needed to achieve the therapeutic International Normalized Ratio (INR) and the time in the therapeutic range (TTR) during a 3-month timeframe. The time needed to achieve the therapeutic INR (in days) for patients in the GBWD group was shorter than that for patients in the CFD group (10.21 ± 4.68 vs. 14.31 ± 8.26, P < 0.001). The overall TTR (Day 4-90) was significantly different between the GBWD group and CFD group (56.86 ± 10.72 vs. 52.87 ± 13.92, P = 0.007).In subgroup analysis, the TTR was also significantly different between the GBWD group and CFD group during the first month of treatment (Day 4-14: 54.28 ± 21.90 vs. 47.01 ± 26.25, P = 0.012; Day 15-28: 59.60 ± 20.12 vs. 51.71 ± 18.96, P = 0.001). However, no significant difference in the TTR was observed after 29 days of treatment. These data suggest that GBWD provided clinical benefits.