Initiating Warfarin Therapy: 5 mg versus 10 mg

Warfarin initiation nomograms for venous thromboembolism

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common condition in hospital patients. Considerable controversy is ongoing regarding optimal initial warfarin dosing for patients with acute deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). Achieving a therapeutic international normalized ratio (INR) with warfarin as soon as possible is important because this minimizes the duration of parenteral medication necessary to attain immediate anticoagulation, and it potentially decreases the cost and inconvenience of treatment. Although a 5-mg loading-dose nomogram tends to prevent excessive anticoagulation, a 10-mg loading-dose nomogram may achieve a therapeutic INR more quickly. This is an update of a review first published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of a 10-mg warfarin nomogram compared with a 5-mg warfarin nomogram among patients with VTE.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update the Cochrane Vascular Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched September 2015) and the Cochrane Register of Studies (CENTRAL (2015, Issue 8). Clinical trials databases were also searched. The review authors searched PubMed (last searched 11 June 2015) and LILACS (last searched 11 June 2015). In addition, the review authors contacted pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled studies comparing warfarin initiation nomograms of 10 and 5 mg in patients with VTE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. The review authors contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Four trials involving 494 participants were included. Three studies involving 383 participants provided data on the proportion of participants who had achieved a therapeutic INR by day five. Significant benefit of a 10-mg warfarin nomogram was observed (risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 1.54; moderate quality evidence), although with substantial heterogeneity (I(2) = 90%). The review authors analyzed each study separately because it was not possible to perform a subgroup analysis by inpatient or outpatient status. One study showed significant benefit of a 10-mg warfarin nomogram for the proportion of outpatients with VTE who had achieved a therapeutic INR by day five (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.41 to 2.25), with the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB = 3, 95% CI 2 to 4); another study showed significant benefit of a 5-mg warfarin nomogram in outpatients with VTE (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.93) with NNTB = 5 (95% CI 3 to 28); a third study, consisting of both inpatients and outpatients, showed no difference (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.80).No difference was observed in recurrent venous thromboembolism at 90 days when the warfarin nomogram of 10 mg was compared with the warfarin nomogram of 5 mg (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.39 to 5.56; 3 studies, 362 participants, low quality evidence); no difference was observed in major bleeding at 14 to 90 days (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.51; 4 studies, 494 participants, moderate quality evidence). No difference was observed in minor bleeding at 14 to 90 days (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.83; 2 studies, 243 participants, very low quality evidence) or in length of hospital stay (mean difference (MD) -2.3 days, 95% CI -7.96 to 3.36; 1 study, 111 participants, low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In patients with acute thromboembolism (DVT or PE) aged 18 years or older, considerable uncertainty surrounds the use of a 10-mg or a 5-mg loading dose for initiation of warfarin to achieve an INR of 2.0 to 3.0 on the fifth day of therapy. Heterogeneity among analyzed studies, mainly caused by differences in types of study participants and length of follow-up, limits certainty surrounding optimal warfarin initiation nomograms.

Comparison of initial loading doses of 5 mg and 10 mg for warfarin therapy

CONTEXT: The question of what is the best loading dosage of warfarin when starting anticoagulant treatment has been under discussion for ten years. We were unable to find any comparative studies of these characteristics conducted here in Brazil. OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of two initial warfarin dosage regimens for anticoagulant treatment. METHODS: One-hundred and ten consecutive patients of both sexes, with indications for anticoagulation because of venous or arterial thromboembolism, were analyzed prospectively. During the first 3 days of treatment, these patients were given adequate heparin to keep aPTT (activated partial thromboplastin time) between 1.5 and 2.5, plus 5 mg of warfarin. From the fourth day onwards, their warfarin doses were adjusted using International Normalized Ratios (INR; target range: 2 to 3). This prospective cohort was compared with a historical series of 110 patients had been given 10 mg of warfarin on the first 2 days and 5 mg on the third day with adjustments based on INR thereafter. Outcomes analyzed were as follows: recurrence of thromboembolism, bleeding events and time taken to enter the therapeutic range. RESULTS: Efficacy, safety and length of hospital stay were similar in both samples. The sample that were given 10 mg entered the therapeutic range earlier (means: 4.5 days vs. 5.8 days), were on lower doses at discharge and had better therapeutic indicators at the first return appointment. CONCLUSIONS: The 10 mg dosage regimen took less time to attain the therapeutic range and was associated with lower warfarin doses at discharge and better INR at first out-patients follow-up visit.

Warfarin Dosing and Body Mass Index

Background: Warfarin is still the most commonly used anticoagulant for the treatment of venous thromboembolism and other hypercoagulable states. Warfarin metabolism is affected by multiple factors, including diet, medications, and individual patient characteristics. As both underdosing and overdosing can increase risks to patients, several studies have attempted to develop dosing protocols. However, few have investigated how patient weight and body mass index (BMI) affect warfarin dosing. Objective: The objective of this study was to determine the association between BMI and the total weekly dose (TWD) of warfarin. Methods: In this retrospective study, we identified patients taking warfarin who had an international normalized ratio (INR) within the therapeutic range to assess if there was a significant correlation between TWD, that is, maintenance warfarin dosing, and BMI in obese and nonobese patients. Results: A total of 831 patients were studied, with a BMI range between 13.4 and 63.1 kg/m2. We found that BMI is positively correlated with the total weekly warfarin dose. Our study showed that for each 1-point increase in BMI, the weekly warfarin dose increased by 0.69 mg. We found that the average warfarin weekly dose in this population can be estimated using the formula: 12.34 + 0.69 × BMI. Conclusion: There is an association between BMI and the TWD of warfarin. This could have dosing implications for both patients and prescribers, as patients with a high BMI will be expected to require higher doses of warfarin to maintain a therapeutic INR.

Warfarin initiation nomograms for venous thromboembolism

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common condition in hospital patients. Considerable controversy is ongoing regarding optimal initial warfarin dosing for patients with acute deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). Achieving a therapeutic international normalized ratio (INR) with warfarin as soon as possible is important because this minimizes the duration of parenteral medication necessary to attain immediate anticoagulation, and it potentially decreases the cost and inconvenience of treatment. Although a 5-mg loading-dose nomogram tends to prevent excessive anticoagulation, a 10-mg loading-dose nomogram may achieve a therapeutic INR more quickly.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of a 10-mg warfarin nomogram compared with a 5-mg warfarin nomogram among patients with VTE.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched January 2013) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2012, Issue 12). The review authors searched PubMed (last searched 10 April 2013) and LILACS (last searched 28 February 2013). In addition, the review authors contacted pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled studies comparing warfarin initiation nomograms of 10 and 5 mg in patients with VTE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. The review authors contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Four trials involving 494 participants were included. Three studies involving 383 participants provided data on the proportion of participants who had achieved a therapeutic INR by day five. Significant benefit of a 10-mg warfarin nomogram was observed (risk ratio [RR] 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05 to 1.54), although with substantial heterogeneity (I(2) = 90%). The review authors analyzed each study separately because it was not possible to perform a subgroup analysis. One study showed significant benefit of a 10-mg warfarin nomogram for the proportion of outpatients with VTE who had achieved a therapeutic INR by day five (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.41 to 2.25), with the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB = 3, 95% CI 2 to 4); another study showed significant benefit of a 5-mg warfarin nomogram in outpatients with VTE (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.93) with NNTB = 5 (95% CI 3 to 28); a third study showed no difference (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.80). No difference was observed in recurrent venous thromboembolism (RVTE) at 90 days when the warfarin nomogram of 10 mg was compared with the warfarin nomogram of 5 mg (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.39 to 5.56); no difference was observed in major bleeding at 14 days (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.22 to 13.04) and at 90 days (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.10 to 3.78). No difference was observed in minor bleeding at 14 to 90 days (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.83) or in length of hospital stay (mean difference [MD] -2.30 days, 95% CI -7.96 to 3.36).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In patients with acute thromboembolism (DVT or PE) aged 18 years or older, considerable uncertainty surrounds the use of a 10-mg or a 5-mg loading dose for initiation of warfarin to achieve an INR of 2.0 to 3.0 on the fifth day of therapy. Heterogeneity among analyzed studies limits certainty surrounding optimal warfarin initiation nomograms.

Dosing options for decreasing the time to achieve therapeutic anticoagulation when reinitiating warfarin: a case series

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To determine dosing options for decreasing the time to achieve a therapeutic international normalized ratio (INR) threshold of 2.0 when restarting warfarin in an ambulatory population whose previous warfarin maintenance doses are known, and to identify thromboembolic and major bleeding events up to 90 days after disruption of warfarin therapy.

DESIGN

Retrospective medical record review.

SETTING

Ambulatory anticoagulation management service (AMS) in Canada.

PATIENTS

Thirty-six patients managed by the AMS whose warfarin doses were withheld for a minimum of 4 consecutive days, who did not use vitamin K for warfarin reversal, and who had at least 90 days of follow-up after restarting warfarin between January 1, 2005, and April 1, 2010.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Forty-one episodes of warfarin reinitiation in the 36 patients were identified. Time to therapeutic INR was defined as days to reach a therapeutic INR threshold of 2.0, regardless of usual target INR or indication for warfarin therapy. Restarting warfarin at previous maintenance doses (i.e., no loading dose) took a median of 20.5 days (interquartile range [IQR] 14.3-31.3 days) to achieve a therapeutic INR. In contrast, administering a loading dose approximating 40% more than the previous daily maintenance dose for 2 or 3 days, on either the first day or after the first day of warfarin reinitiation, shortened the time to achieve a therapeutic INR to a median of 5.0 days (IQR 4.0-6.0 days) or 6.0 days (IQR 5.0-7.8 days), respectively. No thromboembolic events occurred during the 90-day follow-up period. Six episodes of major bleeding occurred. All occurred in patients who received a warfarin loading dose; however, most had INRs less than 2.0 and had risk factors for bleeding.

CONCLUSION

In select patients, the option of administering a warfarin loading dose of approximately 40% greater than the previous daily maintenance dose for 2 or 3 days shortens the time to achieving therapeutic anticoagulation.

Practical application of the 10-mg warfarin initiation nomogram

Initiation of warfarin therapy is a clinical challenge. A 10-mg warfarin initiation nomogram was recently validated in a randomized controlled trial. We sought to determine the efficacy and safety of this 10-mg warfarin initiation nomogram in 'real-life' daily practice. A retrospective cohort including all outpatients beginning concurrent treatment with warfarin and low-molecular-weight heparin over a 24-month period in our Thrombosis Unit was reviewed. Eight hundred and forty-one patients were included; of them, 640 (76.1%) were started on the nomogram. The nomogram was entirely followed in 324 patients (38.5%). The efficacy and safety profile was similar to that observed in the original clinical trial; 86% of patients managed according to the nomogram reached the international normalized ratio target of 2.0-3.0 within 5 days. Mean duration of low-molecular-weight heparin treatment was 6.0 +/- 1.9 days, and 3.7% of patients had an international normalized ratio of at least 5.0 in the first 4 weeks of treatment. The 10-mg nomogram effectively results in an early therapeutic international normalized ratio with a good safety profile in 'real-life' daily practice.

Loading doses for costly cancer biologicals: sound pharmacology or unnecessary extravagance?

The rising cost of new molecularly-targeted anticancer drugs has become a major issue in oncology. One small but significant factor contributing to this problem is the routine co-administration of loading doses, which may inflate the cost of the first treatment by as much as US$1000. Here, we question the cost-effectiveness of this practice in cancer patients on several grounds, including non-urgent pace of disease, lack of evidence for survival benefit, weak dose-dependency of biopharmaceutical efficacy in cancer and the unproven validity of the 'volume of distribution' concept applied to target-specific drugs.

A Pilot Study Comparing Two Methods for Warfarin Management in Hospitalized Patients

Background:

The potential for medication errors in a hospital setting has led to a change from daily order writing to scheduled dosing. It has also been hypothesized that scheduled dosing may decrease the pharmacists' workload in a community teaching hospital.

Objective:

To evaluate the impact that scheduled warfarin dosing would have on patient safety for a pharmacist-run anticoagulation service.

Methods:

Two methods for managing warfarin in a pharmacist-run anticoagulation service were compared. A retrospective chart review was conducted on a random sample of 80 inpatients who received warfarin either from January 2006 through December 2006 (control/daily dosing group) or from January 2007 through March 2007 (scheduled dosing group). Patients not managed by pharmacists or with a target international normalized ratio (INR) range other than 2 to 3 were excluded.

Results:

A total of 35 patients met inclusion criteria; 20 patients were in the daily order (control) group and 15 were in the scheduled dosing group. A total of 7 doses were omitted in the daily dosing group, compared with none in the scheduled dosing group. Of the 7, 4 were omissions in administration and 3 were order omissions. In the control group, the dose was changed 47 times (36%) compared with 23 times (28%) in the scheduled dosing group. In the daily dosing group, 28 (22%) INRs were within the therapeutic range and 97 (78%) were in the nontherapeutic range. In the scheduled dosing group, 24 (25%) INRs were within the therapeutic range and 72 (75%) were in the nontherapeutic range.

Conclusions:

Scheduled dosing eliminated omission-type medication errors and was more efficient than daily dosing. The process change decreased pharmacist workload without having a negative impact on patient care.

Clarification of terminology in medication errors: definitions and classification

We have previously described and analysed some terms that are used in drug safety and have proposed definitions. Here we discuss and define terms that are used in the field of medication errors, particularly terms that are sometimes misunderstood or misused. We also discuss the classification of medication errors. A medication error is a failure in the treatment process that leads to, or has the potential to lead to, harm to the patient. Errors can be classified according to whether they are mistakes, slips, or lapses. Mistakes are errors in the planning of an action. They can be knowledge based or rule based. Slips and lapses are errors in carrying out an action - a slip through an erroneous performance and a lapse through an erroneous memory. Classification of medication errors is important because the probabilities of errors of different classes are different, as are the potential remedies.

The risks of warfarin use in the elderly

The use of warfarin in the elderly, particularly for stroke prevention in chronic atrial fibrillation, is steadily increasing. Although the benefits of warfarin are greatest in the elderly, so are the risk of adverse outcomes and the difficulties of anticoagulant management. Clinical systems need to improve to counter this therapeutic dilemma, as warfarin is likely to remain the only widely available oral anticoagulant for the foreseeable future. Aspects that require attention are: the careful selection of patients in whom treatment with warfarin is appropriate; initiating therapy in a low dose (e.g., 2.5-5 mg/day); thorough education of patients and carers; close monitoring, especially with any change in the patient's regular drug therapy; involving patients more in the management of their warfarin therapy (self-monitoring/management in suitable patients); and ongoing review of the appropriateness of therapy as circumstances change.