Warfarin Monitoring in Ambulatory Older Individuals Receiving Antimicrobial Therapy

Preemptive Dose Adjustment Effect on the Quality of Anticoagulation Management in Warfarin Patients With Drug Interactions: A Retrospective Cohort Study

One strategy to manage patients on warfarin starting an interacting drug is to increase the frequency of monitoring. Another strategy is to adjust warfarin dose around the time patient is started on an interacting medication, which is known as “preemptive warfarin dose adjustment.” The main objective of this study is to compare preemptive to nonpreemptive strategy and their impact on the quality of anticoagulation management. This is a retrospective cohort study performed at the pharmacist-managed anticoagulation clinic in a tertiary hospital in the State of Qatar. Over a 4-year period, 340 patients were evaluated, and 58 warfarin–drug interaction encounters were identified. Mean age of the patients was (57.7 ± 13.7), and 50% of them were females. Preemptive dose adjustment was used in 17 (29.3%) cases. Incidence of out-of-target international normalized ratio (INR) was statistically lower in the preemptive arm compared to the control group (41.2% [7/17] vs 69.2% [27/39], P = .048). Incidence of extreme out-of-target INR was numerically lower in the preemptive arm compared to the control but did not reach statistical significance (11.8% [2/17] vs 29.3% [12/41], P = .139). Change in frequency of INR monitoring was not different between the 2 groups. However, overall frequency of INR monitoring after onset/discontinuation of interacting medication increased compared to baseline (7 [9] vs 21 [16] days, P < .001). Preemptive strategy was shown in our study to decrease incidence of the out-of-target INR visits, although patients remained in need for close monitoring.

Interaction of vitamin K antagonists and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole: ignore at your patient's risk

The aim of the study was to summarize available literature regarding the interaction between vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (co-trimoxazole, TMP-SMX), and to provide recommendations for managing patient risk from this interaction. Data sources were English-language publications in the medical literature and Internet databases. Relevant publications that directly or indirectly addressed the VKA-TMP-SMX interaction were selected and reviewed. The mechanism of the VKA-TMP-SMX interaction, frequency of concurrent use, effect on international normalized ratio (INR), increased risk of bleeding, and strategies for risk reduction are summarized. The concurrent use of VKA and TMP/SMX rapidly and consistently raises INR and is associated with a two- to five-fold increase in bleeding. Concurrent use of VKA and TMP-SMX should be avoided when possible. When VKA and TMP-SMX are co-prescribed, VKA dose reduction is usually required. Patient education as well as early and frequent INR monitoring is recommended to reduce risk from this interaction.

A randomized controlled trial of empiric warfarin dose reduction with the initiation of doxycycline therapy

BACKGROUND

When interacting medications, such as doxycycline, are initiated during warfarin therapy, one method to correct for non-therapeutic international normalized ratio (INR) is adjusting the warfarin dose, if necessary. Another approach is preemptive warfarin dose adjustment. This study's objective was to evaluate the utility of preemptive warfarin dose adjustment for preventing non-therapeutic INR following doxycycline-warfarin co-administration.

METHODS

Patients were randomized to either a 10% to 20% preemptive warfarin dose reduction (intervention) or reactive warfarin dose adjustment (control) within 72 hours of warfarin-doxycycline co-administration. Subjects received a follow-up INR within 7 days (index INR). Primary outcome was the occurrence of index INR ≥ 1 point over the INR goal range upper limit. Secondary outcomes included INR control, purchases of prescription vitamin K, and warfarin-associated adverse events in the 30 days after doxycycline initiation.

RESULTS

Twenty and 17 patients comprised the intervention and control groups. The intervention group's warfarin dose was reduced by a median of 11%. More control patients (n=2) experienced an INR ≥ 1 point over the INR goal range upper limit compared to intervention (n=0); however, the difference (12% vs. 0%) was not statistically significant (p=0.20). A higher percentage of intervention patients had subtherapeutic index INRs compared to control (35% vs. 6%, p<0.05). One patient from each group experienced warfarin-associated bleeding. No thromboembolic complications or vitamin K use were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

For warfarin patients initiating doxycycline therapy, preemptive warfarin dose reduction did not result in supratherapeutic INRs but increased the likelihood of subtherapeutic INRs compared to INR monitoring with reactive warfarin dose adjustment.

Preemptive dose reduction of warfarin in patients initiating metronidazole

BACKGROUND

The goal of this study was to determine if preemptive dose reduction (PDR) of warfarin is effective in maintaining therapeutic anticoagulation in patients initiating metronidazole.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, single-center, cohort study in a pharmacist-managed anticoagulation clinic of a university affiliated Veteran's Affairs (VA) Medical Center. Subjects were anticoagulation patients initiating metronidazole between 1 January 2002 and 30 March 2009. At the time of metronidazole initiation, patients were managed with PDR of warfarin or no dose reduction. The primary outcome was the average change in International Normalized Ratio (INR) between patients that received PDR vs. those that did not.

RESULTS

In total, 20 patients met inclusion criteria with seven patients receiving PDR at the time of initiation of metronidazole, whereas 13 did not. Patients managed with PDR and those that were not were similar in age (mean±SD 69.4±12.9 years vs. 72.1±9.9 years, p=0.61), mean baseline INR before metronidazole (2.58±0.49 vs. 2.57±0.66, p=0.98), and mean time to follow-up after initiation of metronidazole (5.6±2.9 days vs. 7.0±3.7 days, p=0.40), respectively. The primary outcome was statistically significant with a mean difference in INR of 1.28 (p=0.01) between patients manag-ed with PDR vs. those that were not. The mean preemptive warfarin dose reduction was 34.6%±13.4% which resulted in no significant increase in INR (p=0.61). Secondary outcomes including INR values >4.0 (0% vs. 46%, p=0.05), the average number of warfarin doses omitted (0.43±0.79 vs. 1.15±1.27, p=0.17), use of phytonadione or fresh frozen plasma, and rates of bleeding events were not significantly different be-tween groups. No thromboembolic events occurred during the 30 days following metronidazole therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients determined to be appropriate candidates for PDR, a 30%-35% reduction in mean daily warfarin dose was effective in maintaining therapeutic anticoagulation in patients started on concomitant metronidazole.

Quality of anticoagulation and use of warfarin-interacting medications in long-term care: a chart review

Background

Maintenance of therapeutic International Normalized Ratio (INR) in the community is generally poor. The supervised environment in long-term care facilities may represent a more ideal setting for warfarin therapy since laboratory monitoring, compliance, dose adjustment, and interacting medications can all be monitored and controlled. The objectives of this study were to determine how effectively warfarin was administered to a cohort of residents in long-term care facilities, to identify the proportion of residents prescribed warfarin-interacting drugs and to ascertain factors associated with poor INR control.

Methods

A chart review of 105 residents receiving warfarin therapy in five long-term care facilities in Hamilton, Ontario was performed. Data were collected on INR levels, warfarin prescribing and monitoring practices, and use of interacting medications.

Results

Over a 12 month period (28,555 resident-days, 78.2 resident years) 3065 INR values were available. Residents were within, below and above the therapeutic range 54%, 35% and 11% of the time, respectively. Seventy-nine percent of residents were prescribed at least one warfarin-interacting medication during the period in review. Residents receiving interacting medications spent less time in the therapeutic range (53.0% vs. 58.2%, OR = 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.88 to 0.97, P = 0.002). Adequacy of anticoagulation varied significantly between physicians (time in therapeutic range 45.9 to 63.9%).

Conclusion

In this group of long-term care residents, warfarin control was suboptimal. Both prescriber and co-prescription of interacting medications were associated with poorer INR control. Future studies should seek strategies to improve prescriber skill and decrease use of interacting medications.