Clinical application of pharmacogenetic-based warfarin-dosing algorithm in patients of Han nationality after rheumatic valve replacement: a randomized and controlled trial

Pharmacogenetic guided versus standard warfarin dosing for routine clinical care with its pharmacoeconomic impact: a randomized controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Empirical use of pharmacogenetic test(PGT) is advocated for many drugs, and resource-rich setting hospitals are using the same commonly. The clinical translation of pharmacogenetic tests in terms of cost and clinical utility is yet to be examined in hospitals of low middle income countries (LMICs).

AIM

The present study assessed the clinical utility of PGT by comparing the pharmacogenetically(PGT) guided- versus standard of care(SOC)- warfarin therapy, including the health economics of the two warfarin therapies.

METHODS

An open-label, randomized, controlled clinical trial recruited warfarin-receiving patients in pharmacogenetically(PGT) guided- versus standard of care(SOC)- study arms. Pharmacogenetic analysis of CYP2C9*2(rs1799853), CYP2C9*3(rs1057910) and VKORC1(rs9923231) was performed for patients recruited to the PGT-guided arm. PT(Prothrombin Time)-INR(international normalized ratio) testing and dose titrations were allowed as per routine clinical practice. The primary endpoint was the percent time spent in the therapeutic INR range(TTR) during the 90-day observation period. Secondary endpoints were time to reach therapeutic INR(TRT), the proportion of adverse events, and economic comparison between two modes of therapy in a Markov model built for the commonest warfarin indication- atrial fibrillation.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 168 patients, 84 in each arm. Per-protocol analysis showed a significantly high median time spent in therapeutic INR in the genotype-guided arm(42.85%; CI 21.4-66.75) as compared to the SOC arm(8.8%; CI 0-27.2)(p < 0.00001). The TRT was less in the PG-guided warfarin dosing group than the standard-of-care dosing warfarin group (17.85 vs. 33.92 days) (p = 0.002). Bleeding and thromboembolic events were similar in the two study groups. Lifetime expenditure was ₹1,26,830 in the PGT arm compared to ₹1,17,907 in the SOC arm. The QALY gain did not differ in the two groups(3.9 vs. 3.65). Compared to SOC, the incremental cost-utility ratio was ₹35,962 per QALY gain with PGT test opting. In deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the base case results were found to be insensitive to the variation in model parameters. In the cost-effectiveness-acceptability curve analysis, a 90% probability of cost-effectiveness was reached at a willingness-to-pay(WTP) of ₹ 71,630 well below one time GDP threshold of WTP used.

CONCLUSION

Clinical efficacy and the cost-effectiveness of the warfarin pharmacogenetic test suggest its routine use as a point of care investigation for patient care in LMICs.

Opposite Response to Vitamin K Antagonists: A Report of Two Cases and Systematic Review of Literature

Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) are used in the prophylaxis and treatment of thromboembolic disorders. Despite a high efficacy, their narrow therapeutic window and high response variability hamper their management. Several patients experience fluctuations in dose−response and are at increased risk of over- or under-anticoagulation. Therefore, it is essential to monitor the prothrombin time/international normalized ratio to determine the so-called stable dose and to adjust the dosage accordingly. Three polymorphisms, CYP2C9∗2, CYP2C9∗3 and VKORC1-1639G>A, are associated with increased sensitivity to VKAs. Other polymorphisms are associated with a request for a higher dose and VKA resistance. We described the clinical cases of two patients who were referred to the Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacogenetics Unit of the University Hospital of Salerno for pharmacological counseling. One of them showed hypersensitivity and the other one was resistant to VKAs. A systematic review was performed to identify randomized clinical trials investigating the impact of pharmacogenetic testing on increased sensitivity and resistance to VKAs. Although international guidelines are available and information on the genotype-guided dosing approach has been included in VKA drug labels, VKA pharmacogenetic testing is not commonly required. The clinical cases and the results of the systematically reviewed RCTs demonstrate that the pharmacogenetic-based VKA dosing model represents a valuable resource for reducing VKA-associated adverse events.

Ethnic Diversity and Warfarin Pharmacogenomics

Warfarin has remained the most commonly prescribed vitamin K oral anticoagulant worldwide since its approval in 1954. Dosing challenges including having a narrow therapeutic window and a wide interpatient variability in dosing requirements have contributed to making it the most studied drug in terms of genotype-phenotype relationships. However, most of these studies have been conducted in Whites or Asians which means the current pharmacogenomics evidence-base does not reflect ethnic diversity. Due to differences in minor allele frequencies of key genetic variants, studies conducted in Whites/Asians may not be applicable to underrepresented populations such as Blacks, Hispanics/Latinos, American Indians/Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians/other Pacific Islanders. This may exacerbate health inequalities when Whites/Asians have better anticoagulation profiles due to the existence of validated pharmacogenomic dosing algorithms which fail to perform similarly in the underrepresented populations. To examine the extent to which individual races/ethnicities are represented in the existing body of pharmacogenomic evidence, we review evidence pertaining to published pharmacogenomic dosing algorithms, including clinical utility studies, cost-effectiveness studies and clinical implementation guidelines that have been published in the warfarin field.

Changing from mandatory to optional genotyping results in higher acceptance of pharmacist-guided warfarin dosing

Aim: We evaluated the clinical acceptance and feasibility of a pharmacist-guided personalized consult service following its transition from a mandatory (mPGx) to optional (oPGx) CYP2C9/VKORC1/CYP4F2 genotyping for warfarin. Methods: A total of 1105 patients were included. Clinical acceptance and feasibility outcomes were analyzed using bivariate and multivariable analyses. Results: After transitioning to optional genotyping, genotype testing was still ordered in a large segment of the eligible population (52.1%). Physician acceptance of pharmacist-recommended doses improved from 83.9% (mPGx) to 86.6% (oPGx; OR: 1.3; 95% CI: 1.1-1.5; p = 0.01) with a shorter median genotype result turnaround time (oPGX: 23.6 h vs mPGX: 25.1 h; p < 0.01). Conclusion: Ordering of genotype testing and provider acceptance of dosing recommendations remained high after transitioning to optional genotyping.

Efficacy and safety of genotype-guided warfarin dosing versus non-genotype-guided warfarin dosing strategies: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 27 randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of genotype-guided dosing (GD) strategies compared to non-genotype-guided dosing (non-GD) strategies for warfarin.

METHODS

Databases were searched up to July 2021. Meta-analysis was conducted with the Review Manager software (version 5.4) and R (version 4.0.5). Risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on ethnicity and dosing regimen in non-GD group. Meta-regression was performed to evaluate the relation of covariates. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021245654).

RESULTS

27 randomized controlled trials with a total of 9906 patients were included. The GD group resulted in a significantly improved time in therapeutic range compared with non-GD group in follow-up duration within 30 days (MD: 5.95, 95%CI: 2.41-9.22, P = 0.001) and beyond 30 days (MD: 4.93, 1.40-8.47, P = 0.006), time to the first therapeutic international normalized ratio (MD: -1.80, -2.69 - -0.92, P < 0.0001), and time to reach stable dose (MD: -5.08, -7.09 - -3.07, P < 0.00001), incidence of major bleeding events (RR: 0.50, 0.33-0.75, P = 0.0008), total bleeding events (RR: 0.83, 0.73-0.95, P = 0.006), and thromboembolism (RR: 0.69, 0.49-0.96, P = 0.03). No differences were found in stable dose achievement, minor bleeding events, over anticoagulation, and all-cause mortality. Four improved efficacy outcomes were observed in GD group compared with fixed dosing group. Only time to the therapeutic INR was shortened in GD group compared with clinical adjusted dosing group. The result showed no difference of safety outcomes between GD group and fixed dosing group whereas a decreased incidence of major bleeding events was observed when comparing to clinical adjusted dosing group.

CONCLUSION

GD strategy was superior to fixed dosing strategy in term of efficacy outcomes and comparable to fixed dosing strategy in safety outcomes. Clinical adjusted regimen could partly substitute the genotype-guided dosing strategy for efficacy in insufficient conditions, but the risk of major bleeding events should be monitored.

Acenocoumarol Pharmacogenetic Dosing Algorithm versus Usual Care in Patients with Venous Thromboembolism: A Randomised Clinical Trial

Patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) require immediate treatment with anticoagulants such as acenocoumarol. This multicentre randomised clinical trial evaluated the effectiveness of a dosing pharmacogenetic algorithm versus a standard-of-care dose adjustment at the beginning of acenocoumarol treatment. We included 144 patients with VTE. On the day of recruitment, a blood sample was obtained for genotyping (CYP2C9*2, CYP2C9*3, VKORC1, CYP4F2, APOE). Dose adjustment was performed on day 3 or 4 after the start of treatment according to the assigned group and the follow-up was at 12 weeks. The principal variable was the percentage of patients with an international normalised ratio (INR) within the therapeutic range on day 7. Thirty-four (47.2%) patients had an INR within the therapeutic range at day 7 after the start of treatment in the genotype-guided group compared with 14 (21.9%) in the control group (p = 0.0023). There were no significant differences in the time to achieve a stable INR, the number of INRs within the range in the first 6 weeks and at the end of study. Our results suggest the use of a pharmacogenetic algorithm for patients with VTE could be useful in achieving target INR control in the first days of treatment.

A network meta-analysis of CYP2C9, CYP2C9 with VKORC1 and CYP2C9 with VKORC1 and CYP4F2 genotype-based warfarin dosing strategies compared to traditional

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVES

Variations in genotypes were observed in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluated genotype-based warfarin dosing. We carried out a network meta-analysis to assess whether any clinically significant differences exist between RCTs evaluating CYP2C9 with VKORC1, with CYP2C9 alone and CYP2C9, VKORC1, with CYP4F2 dosing strategies.

METHODS

Electronic records were searched for RCTs comparing genotype-based warfarin with traditional-dosing strategies. Key outcomes included were the time to first therapeutic international normalized ratio (INR); time to stable INR or warfarin dose; percent time in therapeutic range (TTR); and the proportion of patients with supra-therapeutic INR. Weighted mean differences (WMD) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were the effect estimates.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Twenty-six studies (7898 patients) were included. CYP2C9-based warfarin dosing was associated with a shorter time to first therapeutic INR (WMD: -2.73, 95% CI: -3.41, -2.05) and stable INR/warfarin dose (WMD: -8.1, 95% CI: -12.54, -3.66). CYP2C9 and VKORC1 were observed with a shorter time to first therapeutic INR (WMD: -1.92, 95% CI: -3.23, -0.61) and stable INR/warfarin dose (WMD: -4.6, 95% CI: -6.87, -2.34) along with a longer TTR (%) (WMD: 3.91, 95% CI: 1.18, 6.63). CYP2C9, VKORC1 and CYP4F2 were observed with a reduced proportion of patients with supra-therapeutic INR (OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.49, 0.93). Trial sequential analysis confirms the superior benefits of CYP2C9 with VKORC1 genotype.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

The present evidence is supportive of personalizing warfarin dose based only on CYP2C9 and VKORC1 genotypes compared to traditional strategies. More RCTs are needed to delineate any benefit for adding CYP4F2 to provide sufficient power for pooled analysis. No convincing evidence exists supporting the role of CYP2C9 alone.

Delayed diagnosis of spinal subarachnoid hemorrhage in association with warfarin administration: a case report and literature review

Spinal subarachnoid hemorrhage is a life-threatening condition often associated with markedly high morbidity and mortality rates. However, diagnosis is difficult because of its atypical symptoms. We herein describe a 52-year-old Chinese man who had been receiving warfarin therapy since having undergone mechanical mitral valve replacement surgery 3 years previously. Two days before admission to our hospital, he suddenly developed low back pain, urinary incontinence, and paraplegia. He was diagnosed with acute myelitis at a local hospital, but he subsequently developed a slight headache and was transferred to our hospital 2 days later. The patient was suspected to have subarachnoid hemorrhage based on his computed tomography (CT) findings. On the third day after admission, a CT scan showed both subarachnoid and cerebral hemorrhage. Blood tests revealed an international normalized ratio ranging from 1.44 to 1.86 and a prothrombin time of 16.5 to 21.3 s. We performed a lumbar puncture and obtained bloody cerebrospinal fluid. The patient also underwent spinal CT and angiography, which confirmed the diagnosis of spontaneous spinal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Because his general condition was poor, he underwent conservative treatment, and his neurologic function slightly improved after discharge.

Efficacy and Safety of Genotype-Guided Warfarin Dosing in the Chinese Population: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of using genetic information to guide warfarin dosing in the Chinese population.

METHODS

This meta-analysis was conducted among the published, randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) in the Chinese population comparing genotype-guided warfarin dosing (PG group) with clinical or standard warfarin dosing (STD group). RCTs published on or before January 2018 were identified using the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Chinese VIP database, and Chinese Wanfang database.

RESULT

Intotal, 2137 participants from 14 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Primary analysis showed that both bleeding events [odds ratio (OR) = 0.24; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.11-0.52; P = 0.0003] and adverse events (OR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43-0.83; P = 0.002) were significantly lower in the genotype-guided group than in the clinical or standard group. The percentage of patients who received a warfarin-stable therapeutic dose during follow-up was increased in the genotype-guided group compared with the percentage in the clinical or standard group (OR = 2.68; 95% CI, 1.82-3.95; P < 0.00001). In the genotype-guided group, the time to a stable therapeutic dose (mean difference = -7.98; 95% CI, -9.08 to -6.87; P < 0.00001) and the time to the first target value (mean difference = -1.87; 95% CI, -3.41 to -0.32; P = 0.02) were shortened compared with those of the clinical or standard group, but there was no difference for international normalized ratio >4, between the 2 groups (OR = 0.42; 95% CI, 0.14-1.25; P = 0.12).

CONCLUSIONS

Genotype-guided warfarin-dosing algorithms could improve the efficacy and safety of warfarin anticoagulation in the Chinese population.

Warfarin dose requirement in patients having severe thrombosis or thrombophilia

AIMS

Warfarin dose requirement varies significantly. We compared the clinically established doses based on international normalized ratio (INR) among patients with severe thrombosis and/or thrombophilia with estimates from genetic dosing algorithms.

METHODS

Fifty patients with severe thrombosis and/or thrombophilia requiring permanent anticoagulation, referred to the Helsinki University Hospital Coagulation Center, were screened for thrombophilias and genotyped for CYP2C9*2 (c.430C>T, rs1799853), CYP2C9*3 (c.1075A>C, rs1057910) and VKORC1 c.-1639G>A (rs9923231) variants. The warfarin maintenance doses (target INR 2.0-3.0 in 94%, 2.5-3.5 in 6%) were estimated by the Gage and the International Warfarin Pharmacogenetics Consortium (IWPC) algorithms. The individual warfarin maintenance dose was tailored, supplementing estimates with comprehensive clinical evaluation and INR data.

RESULTS

Mean patient age was 47 years (range 20-76), and BMI 27 (SD 6), 68% being women. Forty-six (92%) had previous venous or arterial thrombosis, and 26 (52%) had a thrombophilia, with 22% having concurrent aspirin. A total of 40% carried the CYP2C9*2 or *3 allele and 54% carried the VKORC1-1639A allele. The daily mean maintenance dose of warfarin estimated by the Gage algorithm was 5.4 mg (95% CI 4.9-5.9 mg), and by the IWPC algorithm was 5.2 mg (95% CI 4.7-5.7 mg). The daily warfarin maintenance dose after clinical visits and follow-up was higher than the estimates, mean 6.9 mg (95% CI 5.6-8.2 mg, P < 0.006), with highest dose in patients having multiple thrombophilic factors (P < 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

In severe thrombosis and/or thrombophilia, variation in thrombin generation and pharmacodynamics influences warfarin response. Pharmacogenetic dosing algorithms seem to underestimate dose requirement.

Precision dosing of warfarin: open questions and strategies

Warfarin has a very narrow therapeutic window and obvious interindividual variability in its effects, with many factors contributing to the body's response. Algorithms incorporating multiple genetic, environment and clinical factors have been established to select a precision dose for each patient. A number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted to explore whether patients could benefit from these algorithms; however, the results were inconsistent. Some questions remain to be resolved. Recently, new genetic and non-genetic factors have been discovered to contribute to variability in optimal warfarin doses. The results of further RCTs have been unveiled, and guidelines for pharmacogenetically guided warfarin dosing have been updated. Based on these most recent advancements, we summarize some open questions in this field and try to propose possible strategies to resolve them.

Genotype-guided warfarin dosing vs. conventional dosing strategies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIMS

Previous trials on the effectiveness of genotype-guided warfarin dosing vs. conventional dosing have been inconclusive. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing genotype-guided to conventional dosing strategies.

METHODS

PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched up to 23 October 2017.

RESULTS

A total of 76 and 94 entries were retrieved were retrieved from PubMed and the Cochrane Library, respectively. A total of 2626 subjects in the genotype-guided dosing (mean age 63.3 ± 5.8 years; 46% male) and 2604 subjects in the conventional dosing (mean age 64.7 ± 6.1 years; 46% male) groups (mean follow-up duration 64 days) from 18 trials were included. Compared with conventional dosing, genotype-guided dosing significantly shortened the time to first therapeutic international normalized ratio (INR) (mean difference 2.6 days, standard error 0.3 days; P < 0.0001; I² 0%) and time to first stable INR (mean difference 5.9 days, standard error 2.0 days; P < 0.01; I² 94%). Genotype-guided dosing also increased the time in therapeutic range (mean difference 3.1%, standard error 1.2%; P < 0.01; I² 80%) and reduced the risks of both excessive anticoagulation, defined as INR ≥4 [risk ratio (RR) 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78, 0.98; P < 0.05; I² : 0%), and bleeding (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.69, 0.98; P < 0.05; I² 31%). No difference in thromboembolism (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.56, 1.26; P = 0.40; I² 0%) or mortality (RR 1.16; 95% CI 0.46, 2.91; P = 0.76; I² 0%) was observed between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Genotype-guided warfarin dosing offers better safety with less bleeding compared with conventional dosing strategies. No significant benefit on thromboembolism or mortality was evident.

Genotype-guided warfarin therapy: current status

Warfarin pharmacogenomics has been an extensively studied field in the last decades as it is focused on personalized therapy to overcome the wide interpatient warfarin response variability and decrease the risk of side effects. In this expert review, besides briefly summarizing the current knowledge about warfarin pharmacogenetics, we also present an overview of recent studies that aimed to assess the efficacy, safety and economic issues related to genotype-based dosing algorithms used to guide warfarin therapy, including randomized and controlled clinical trials, meta-analyses and cost-effectiveness studies. To date, the findings still present disparities, mostly because of standard limitations. Thus, further studies should be encouraged to try to demonstrate the benefits of the application of warfarin pharmacogenomic dosing algorithms in clinical practice.

Meta-Analysis of Genotype-Guided Versus Standard Dosing of Vitamin K Antagonists

Vitamin K antagonist (VKA) is a commonly prescribed anticoagulant with a narrow therapeutic window. Genetic polymorphisms account for high VKA dosage variability. Hence, we performed an updated meta-analysis of all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing genotype-guided VKA versus standard dosing algorithms. We conducted a systematic search of electronic databases from inception to October 2017 for all RCTs. The primary outcome was the percentage of time in therapeutic range (TTR). Secondary outcomes were international normalized ratio >4, major and all bleeding events, thromboembolism, adverse and serious adverse events, and all-cause mortality. We calculated the weighted mean difference for the primary outcome and risk ratio (RR) for secondary outcomes using a random-effect model. We included 20 RCTs and analyzed a total of 5,980 adult patients. Our pooled analysis showed greater improvement in TTR for the genotype-guided group in comparison with the standard group (mean difference 3.41%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71 to 6.10, p = 0.01). In addition, there were significant reductions in major and all bleeding events ((RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.63, p = 0.0004) and (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.95, p = 0.01), respectively). However, there were no significant differences between the groups for international normalized ratio >4 (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00, p = 0.06), thromboembolism (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.17, p = 0.25), serious adverse events (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.03, p = 0.08), any adverse events (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01, p = 0.07), or all-cause mortality (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.66, p = 0.46). In conclusion, genotype-guided VKA dosing can improve the TTR and reduce the risk for bleeding episodes, in comparison with standard dosing algorithms.

Genotype-guided versus standard vitamin K antagonist dosing algorithms in patients initiating anticoagulation

Variability in vitamin K antagonist (VKA) dosing is partially explained by genetic polymorphisms. We performed a meta-analysis to determine whether genotype-guided VKA dosing algorithms decrease a composite of death, thromboembolic events and major bleeding (pri-mary outcome) and improve time in therapeutic range (TTR). We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, trial registries and conference proceedings for randomised trials comparing genotype-guided and standard (non genotype-guided) VKA dosing algorithms in adults initiating anticoagulation. Data were pooled using a random effects model. Of the 12 included studies (3,217 patients), six reported all components of the primary outcome of mortality, thromboembolic events and major bleeding (2,223 patients, 87 events). Our meta-analysis found no significant difference between groups for the primary outcome (relative risk 0.85, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.54–1.34; heterogeneity X2=4.46, p=0.35, I2=10 %). Based on 10 studies (2,767 patients), TTR was significantly higher in the genotype-guided group (mean difference (MD) 4.31 %; 95 % CI 0.35, 8.26; heterogeneity X2=43.31, p< 0.001, I2=79 %). Pre-specified exploratory analyses demonstrated that TTR was significantly higher when geno-type-guided dosing was compared with fixed VKA dosing (6 trials, 997 patients: MD 8.41 %; 95 % CI 3.50,13.31; heterogeneity X2=15.18, p=0.01, I2=67 %) but not when compared with clinical algorithm-guided dosing (4 trials, 1,770 patients: MD –0.29 %; 95 % CI –2.48,1.90; heterogeneity X2=1.53, p=0.68, I2=0 %; p for interaction=0.002). In conclusion, genotype-guided compared with standard VKA dosing algorithms were not found to decrease a composite of death, thromboembolism and major bleeding, but did result in improved TTR. An improvement in TTR was observed in comparison with fixed VKA dosing algorithms, but not with clinical algorithms.

Effect of Genotype-Guided Warfarin Dosing on Clinical Events and Anticoagulation Control Among Patients Undergoing Hip or Knee Arthroplasty: The GIFT Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Warfarin use accounts for more medication-related emergency department visits among older patients than any other drug. Whether genotype-guided warfarin dosing can prevent these adverse events is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether genotype-guided dosing improves the safety of warfarin initiation.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS

The randomized clinical Genetic Informatics Trial (GIFT) of Warfarin to Prevent Deep Vein Thrombosis included patients aged 65 years or older initiating warfarin for elective hip or knee arthroplasty and was conducted at 6 US medical centers. Enrollment began in April 2011 and follow-up concluded in October 2016.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were genotyped for the following polymorphisms: VKORC1-1639G>A, CYP2C9*2, CYP2C9*3, and CYP4F2 V433M. In a 2 × 2 factorial design, patients were randomized to genotype-guided (n = 831) or clinically guided (n = 819) warfarin dosing on days 1 through 11 of therapy and to a target international normalized ratio (INR) of either 1.8 or 2.5. The recommended doses of warfarin were open label, but the patients and clinicians were blinded to study group assignment.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was the composite of major bleeding, INR of 4 or greater, venous thromboembolism, or death. Patients underwent a screening lower-extremity duplex ultrasound approximately 1 month after arthroplasty.

RESULTS

Among 1650 randomized patients (mean age, 72.1 years [SD, 5.4 years]; 63.6% women; 91.0% white), 1597 (96.8%) received at least 1 dose of warfarin therapy and completed the trial (n = 808 in genotype-guided group vs n = 789 in clinically guided group). A total of 87 patients (10.8%) in the genotype-guided group vs 116 patients (14.7%) in the clinically guided warfarin dosing group met at least 1 of the end points (absolute difference, 3.9% [95% CI, 0.7%-7.2%], P = .02; relative rate [RR], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.56-0.95]). The numbers of individual events in the genotype-guided group vs the clinically guided group were 2 vs 8 for major bleeding (RR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.05-1.15), 56 vs 77 for INR of 4 or greater (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51-0.99), 33 vs 38 for venous thromboembolism (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.54-1.34), and there were no deaths.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients undergoing elective hip or knee arthroplasty and treated with perioperative warfarin, genotype-guided warfarin dosing, compared with clinically guided dosing, reduced the combined risk of major bleeding, INR of 4 or greater, venous thromboembolism, or death. Further research is needed to determine the cost-effectiveness of personalized warfarin dosing.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01006733.

Verification of five pharmacogenomics-based warfarin administration models

Objective:

This study aims to screen and validate five individual warfarin dosing models (four Asian model algorithms, namely, Ohno, Wen, Miao, Huang, and the algorithm of International Warfarin Pharmacogenetic Consortium, namely IWPC algorithm) with the aim of evaluating their accuracy, practicality, and safety.

Materials and Methods:

Patients’ CYP2C9*3 and VKORC1–1639G >A genes were genotyped, and patient-related information and steady warfarin doses were recorded. The difference between the predicted dose and actual maintenance dose of each model was compared.

Results:

The prediction accuracies of the Huang and Wen models were the highest. In terms of clinical practicality, the Huang model rated the highest for the low-dose group, whereas the Ohno and IWPC models rated the highest for the middle-dose group. The models tended to markedly overpredict the doses in the low-dose group, especially the IWPC model. The Miao model tended to severely underpredict the doses in the middle-dose group, whereas no model exhibited severe overprediction.

Conclusions:

Since none of the models ranked high for all the three criteria considered, the impact of various factors should be thoroughly considered before selecting the most appropriate model for the region's population.

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials reveals an improved clinical outcome of using genotype plus clinical algorithm for warfarin dosing

Previous studies have raised interest in using the genotyping of CYP2C9 and VKORC1 to guide warfarin dosing. However, there is lack of solid evidence to prove that genotype plus clinical algorithm provides improved clinical outcomes than the single clinical algorithm. The results of recent reported clinical trials are paradoxical and needs to be systematically evaluated. In this study, we aim to assess whether genotype plus clinical algorithm of warfarin is superior to the single clinical algorithm through a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). All relevant studies from PubMed and reference lists from Jan 1, 1995 to Jan 13, 2014 were extracted and screened. Eligible studies included randomized trials that compared clinical plus pharmacogenetic algorithms group to single clinical algorithm group using adult (≥ 18 years) patients with disease conditions that require warfarin use. We further used fix-effect models to calculate the mean difference or the risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs to analyze the extracted data. The statistical heterogeneity was calculated using I(2). The percentage of time within the therapeutic INR range was considered to be the primary clinical outcome. The initial search strategy identified 50 citations and 7 trials were eligible. These seven trials included 1,910 participants, including 960 patients who received genotype plus clinical algorithm of warfarin dosing and 950 patients who received clinical algorithm only. We discovered that the percentage of time within the therapeutic INR range of the genotype-guided group was improved compared with the standard group in the RCTs when the initial standard dose was fixed (95% CI 0.09-0.40; I(2) = 47.8%). However, for the studies using non-fixed initial doses, the genotype-guided group failed to exhibit statistically significant outcome compared to the standard group. No significant difference was observed in the incidences of adverse events (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84-1.04; I(2) = 0%, p = 0.647) and death rates (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.46-4.05; I(2) = 10.4%, p = 0.328) between the two groups. Allocation to genotype plus clinical algorithm may be associated with a significant improvement of the percentage of time within the therapeutic INR range for patients adopting fixed dose of warfarin. The incidence of total adverse events and death rates did not differ between these two groups. Further experiments need to be conducted to confirm these findings.

Prediction of sensitivity to warfarin based on VKORC1 and CYP2C9 polymorphisms in patients from different places in Colombia

INTRODUCTION

In the search to prevent hemorrhages associated with anticoagulant therapy, a major goal is to validate predictors of sensitivity to warfarin. However, previous studies in Colombia that included polymorphisms in the VKORC1 and CYP2C9 genes as predictors reported different algorithm performances to explain dose variations, and did not evaluate the prediction of sensitivity to warfarin. 

OBJECTIVE

To determine the accuracy of the pharmacogenetic analysis, which includes the CYP2C9 *2 and *3 and VKORC1 1639G>A polymorphisms in predicting patients' sensitivity to warfarin at the Hospital Militar Central, a reference center for patients born in different parts of Colombia. 

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Demographic and clinical data were obtained from 130 patients with stable doses of warfarin for more than two months. Next, their genotypes were obtained through a melting curve analysis. After verifying the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium of the genotypes from the polymorphisms, a statistical analysis was done, which included multivariate and predictive approaches. 

RESULTS

A pharmacogenetic model that explained 52.8% of dose variation (p<0.001) was built, which was only 4% above the performance resulting from the same data using the International Warfarin Pharmacogenetics Consortium algorithm. The model predicting the sensitivity achieved an accuracy of 77.8% and included age (p=0.003), polymorphisms *2 and *3 (p=0.002) and polymorphism 1639G>A (p<0.001) as predictors. 

CONCLUSIONS

These results in a mixed population support the prediction of sensitivity to warfarin based on polymorphisms in VKORC1 and CYP2C9 as a valid approach in Colombian patients.

Pharmacogenetics-based warfarin dosing algorithm decreases time to stable anticoagulation and the risk of major hemorrhage: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Warfarin is yet the most widely used oral anticoagulant for thromboembolic diseases, despite the recently emerged novel anticoagulants. However, difficulty in maintaining stable dose within the therapeutic range and subsequent serious adverse effects markedly limited its use in clinical practice. Pharmacogenetics-based warfarin dosing algorithm is a recently emerged strategy to predict the initial and maintaining dose of warfarin. However, whether this algorithm is superior over conventional clinically guided dosing algorithm remains controversial. We made a comparison of pharmacogenetics-based versus clinically guided dosing algorithm by an updated meta-analysis. We searched OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for relevant citations. The primary outcome was the percentage of time in therapeutic range. The secondary outcomes were time to stable therapeutic dose and the risks of adverse events including all-cause mortality, thromboembolic events, total bleedings, and major bleedings. Eleven randomized controlled trials with 2639 participants were included. Our pooled estimates indicated that pharmacogenetics-based dosing algorithm did not improve percentage of time in therapeutic range [weighted mean difference, 4.26; 95% confidence interval (CI), -0.50 to 9.01; P = 0.08], but it significantly shortened the time to stable therapeutic dose (weighted mean difference, -8.67; 95% CI, -11.86 to -5.49; P < 0.00001). Additionally, pharmacogenetics-based algorithm significantly reduced the risk of major bleedings (odds ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.98; P = 0.04), but it did not reduce the risks of all-cause mortality, total bleedings, or thromboembolic events. Our results suggest that pharmacogenetics-based warfarin dosing algorithm significantly improves the efficiency of International Normalized Ratio correction and reduces the risk of major hemorrhage.

Pharmacogenetics-Based versus Conventional Dosing of Warfarin: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Recently, using the patient’s genotype to guide warfarin dosing has gained interest; however, whether pharmacogenetics-based dosing (PD) improves clinical outcomes compared to conventional dosing (CD) remains unclear. Thus, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate these two strategies.

Methods

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese VIP and Chinese Wan-fang databases were searched. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool was used to assess the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome was time within the therapeutic range (TTR); the secondary end points were the time to maintenance dose and time to first therapeutic international normalized ratio (INR), an INR greater than 4, adverse events, major bleeding, thromboembolism and death from any cause.

Results

A total of 11 trials involving 2,678 patients were included in our meta-analysis. The results showed that PD did not improve the TTR compared to CD, although PD significantly shortened the time to maintenance dose (MD = -8.80; 95% CI: -11.99 to -5.60; P<0.00001) and the time to first therapeutic INR (MD = -2.80; 95% CI: -3.45 to -2.15; P<0.00001). Additionally, PD significantly reduced the risk of adverse events (RR = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.75 to 0.99; P = 0.03) and major bleeding (RR = 0.36; 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.89, P = 0.03), although it did not reduce the percentage of INR greater than 4, the risk of thromboembolic events and death from any cause. Subgroup analysis showed that PD resulted in a better improvement in the endpoints of TTR and over-anticoagulation at a fixed initial dosage rather than a non-fixed initial dosage.

Conclusions

The use of genotype testing in the management of warfarin anticoagulation was associated with significant improvements in INR-related and clinical outcomes. Thus, genotype-based regimens can be considered a reliable and accurate method to determine warfarin dosing and may be preferred over fixed-dose regimens.

Trial Registration PROSPERO

Database registration: CRD42015024127.

Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials of Genotype-Guided vs Standard Dosing of Warfarin

BACKGROUND

Warfarin is a widely prescribed anticoagulant, and its effect depends on various patient factors including genotypes. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing genotype-guided dosing (GD) of warfarin with standard dosing have shown mixed efficacy and safety outcomes. We performed a meta-analysis of all published RCTs comparing GD vs standard dosing in adult patients with various indications of warfarin use.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and relevant references for English language RCTs (inception through March 2014). We performed the meta-analysis using a random effects model.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs with a total of 2,505 patients were included in the meta-analysis. GD compared with standard dosing resulted in a similar % time in therapeutic range (TTR) at ≤ 1 month follow-up (39.7% vs 40.2%; mean difference [MD], -0.52 [95% CI, -3.15 to 2.10]; P = .70) and higher % TTR (59.4% vs 53%; MD, 6.35 [95% CI, 1.76-10.95]; P = .007) at > 1 month follow-up, a trend toward lower risk of major bleeding (risk ratio, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.19-0.1.11]; P = .08) at ≤ 1 month follow-up and lower risks of major bleeding (0.34 [95% CI, 0.16-0.74], P = .006) at > 1-month follow-up, and shorter time to maintenance dose (TMD) (24.6 days vs 34.1 days; MD, -9.54 days [95% CI, -18.10 to -0.98]; P = .03) at follow-up but had no effects on international normalized ratio [INR] > 4.0, nonmajor bleeding, thrombotic outcomes, or overall mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

In the first month of genotype-guided warfarin therapy, compared with standard dosing, there were no improvements in % TTR, INR > 4.0, major or minor bleeding, thromboembolism, or all-cause mortality. There was a shorter TMD, and, after 1 month, improved % TTR and major bleeding incidence, making this a cost-effective strategy in patients requiring longer anticoagulation therapy.

Genotype-guided drug prescribing: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials

AIM

Adverse drug events lead to increased morbidity, mortality and health care costs. Pharmacogenetic testing that guides drug prescribing has the potential to reduced adverse drug events and increase drug effectiveness. Our aim was to quantify the clinical effectiveness of genotype-guided prescribing.

METHODS

Three electronic databases were searched from January 1980 through December 2013. Studies were eligible if they were RCTs comparing genotype-guided prescribing with non-genetic informed prescribing, reported drug specific adverse drug events and clinical effectiveness outcomes. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, extracted data and assessed study quality. Meta-analyses of specific outcomes were conducted where data allowed.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies, involving 5688 patients and 19 drugs, met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Eight studies had statistically significant results for their primary outcome in favour of genotype-guided prescribing. Nine studies evaluated genotype-guided warfarin dosing. Analysis of percentage of time in therapeutic international normalized ratio range (1952 individuals) showed a statistically significant benefit in favour of genotype-guided warfarin dosing (mean difference = 6.67; 95% CI 1.34, 12.0, I(2) = 80%). There was a statistically significant reduction in numbers of warfarin-related minor bleeding, major bleeding and thromboembolisms associated with genotype guided warfarin dosing, relative risk 0.57 (95% CI 0.33, 0.99; I(2) = 60%). It was not possible to meta-analyze genotype-guided dosing for other drugs. Of the six non-warfarin genotype-guided trials, two demonstrated a statistically significant benefit for their primary outcome, odds ratio 0.03 (95% CI 0.00, 0.62, P < 0.001) for abacavir.

CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence of improved clinical effectiveness associated with genotype-guided warfarin dosing.

Warfarin pharmacogenomics: current best evidence

The utility of using genetic information to guide warfarin dosing has remained unclear based on prior observational studies and small clinical trials. Two larger trials of warfarin and one of the acenocoumarol and phenprocoumon have recently been published. The COAG trial addressed the incremental benefit of adding genetic information to clinical information and demonstrated no benefit from the pharmacogenetic-based dosing strategy on the primary outcome. The EU-PACT UK trial compared an algorithm approach using genetic and clinical information to one that used a relatively fixed starting dose. The pharmacogenetic-based algorithms improved the primary outcome. The study of acenocoumarol and phenprocoumon compared a pharmacogenetic with a clinical algorithm and demonstrated no benefit on the primary outcome. The evidence to date does not support an incremental benefit of adding genetic information to clinical information on anticoagulation control. However, compared with fixed dosing, a pharmacogenetic algorithm can improve anticoagulation control.

Oral anticoagulation: a critique of recent advances and controversies

There have recently been significant advances in the field of oral anticoagulation, but these have also led to many controversies. Warfarin is still the commonest drug used for clotting disorders but its use is complicated owing to wide inter-individual variability in dose requirement and its narrow therapeutic index. Warfarin dose requirement can be influenced by both genetic and environmental factors. Two recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) came to different conclusion regarding the utility of genotype-guided dosing; we critically explore the reasons for the differences. The new generation of oral anticoagulants have been demonstrated to be as efficacious as warfarin, but further work is needed to evaluate their safety in real clinical settings.

Pharmacogenetic-guided dosing of coumarin anticoagulants: algorithms for warfarin, acenocoumarol and phenprocoumon

Coumarin derivatives, such as warfarin, acenocoumarol and phenprocoumon are frequently prescribed oral anticoagulants to treat and prevent thromboembolism. Because there is a large inter-individual and intra-individual variability in dose-response and a small therapeutic window, treatment with coumarin derivatives is challenging. Certain polymorphisms in CYP2C9 and VKORC1 are associated with lower dose requirements and a higher risk of bleeding. In this review we describe the use of different coumarin derivatives, pharmacokinetic characteristics of these drugs and differences amongst the coumarins. We also describe the current clinical challenges and the role of pharmacogenetic factors. These genetic factors are used to develop dosing algorithms and can be used to predict the right coumarin dose. The effectiveness of this new dosing strategy is currently being investigated in clinical trials.

Improved drug therapy: triangulating phenomics with genomics and metabolomics

Embracing the complexity of biological systems has a greater likelihood to improve prediction of clinical drug response. Here we discuss limitations of a singular focus on genomics, epigenomics, proteomics, transcriptomics, metabolomics, or phenomics-highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each individual technique. In contrast, 'systems biology' is proposed to allow clinicians and scientists to extract benefits from each technique, while limiting associated weaknesses by supplementing with other techniques when appropriate. Perfect predictive modeling is not possible, whereas modeling of intertwined phenomic responses using genomic stratification with metabolomic modifications may greatly improve predictive values for drug therapy. We thus propose a novel-integrated approach to personalized medicine that begins with phenomic data, is stratified by genomics, and ultimately refined by metabolomic pathway data. Whereas perfect prediction of efficacy and safety of drug therapy is not possible, improvements can be achieved by embracing the complexity of the biological system. Starting with phenomics, the combination of linking metabolomics to identify common biologic pathways and then stratifying by genomic architecture, might increase predictive values. This systems biology approach has the potential, in specific subsets of patients, to avoid drug therapy that will be either ineffective or unsafe.

A pharmacogenetics-based warfarin maintenance dosing algorithm from Northern Chinese patients

Inconsistent associations with warfarin dose were observed in genetic variants except VKORC1 haplotype and CYP2C9*3 in Chinese people, and few studies on warfarin dose algorithm was performed in a large Chinese Han population lived in Northern China. Of 787 consenting patients with heart-valve replacements who were receiving long-term warfarin maintenance therapy, 20 related Single nucleotide polymorphisms were genotyped. Only VKORC1 and CYP2C9 SNPs were observed to be significantly associated with warfarin dose. In the derivation cohort (n = 551), warfarin dose variability was influenced, in decreasing order, by VKORC1 rs7294 (27.3%), CYP2C9*3(7.0%), body surface area(4.2%), age(2.7%), target INR(1.4%), CYP4F2 rs2108622 (0.7%), amiodarone use(0.6%), diabetes mellitus(0.6%), and digoxin use(0.5%), which account for 45.1% of the warfarin dose variability. In the validation cohort (n = 236), the actual maintenance dose was significantly correlated with predicted dose (r = 0.609, P<0.001). Our algorithm could improve the personalized management of warfarin use in Northern Chinese patients.

High resolution melting method to detect single nucleotide polymorphism of VKORC1 and CYP2C9

Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of VKORC (1173T/C, rs9934438) and CYP2C9 (1075A/C, rs1057910) are major contributory factors on the sensitivity of warfarin in Chinese. Analysis of the two genomic loci could help warfarin treatment individual from bleeding or thrombosis events. An assay with the advantages of simplicity, speed, high sensitivity and low cost for genotyping is calling for clinical laboratories. High resolution method (HRM) meets these callings, but no study with large sample tested its performance in genotyping of rs9934438 and rs1057910. In this study, we identified polymorphisms of rs9934438 and rs1057910 in 255 unrelated Chinese heart valve replacement patients of Han ethnic group from West China Hospital. The two genomic loci were genotyped by HRM using LightCycler® 480 High Resolution Melting Master on LightCycler® 480 Real-Time PCR instruments (Roche Diagnostics), and all amplified PCR products were sent for direct DNA sequencing. The genotyping of rs1057910 between HRM and sequencing showed perfect 100% concordance. While the concordance of rs9934438 between HRM and sequencing was 99.2%. Unexpected mutation interfered genotyping results of HRM when genotyping rs9934438. HRM is a valuable technique for genotype detection of rs9934438 and rs1057910 to assess individual sensitivity to warfarin, where DNA sequencing is added inevitably sometimes.

A randomized trial of genotype-guided dosing of acenocoumarol and phenprocoumon

BACKGROUND

Observational evidence suggests that the use of a genotype-guided dosing algorithm may increase the effectiveness and safety of acenocoumarol and phenprocoumon therapy.

METHODS

We conducted two single-blind, randomized trials comparing a genotype-guided dosing algorithm that included clinical variables and genotyping for CYP2C9 and VKORC1 with a dosing algorithm that included only clinical variables, for the initiation of acenocoumarol or phenprocoumon treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism. The primary outcome was the percentage of time in the target range for the international normalized ratio (INR; target range, 2.0 to 3.0) in the 12-week period after the initiation of therapy. Owing to low enrollment, the two trials were combined for analysis. The primary outcome was assessed in patients who remained in the trial for at least 10 weeks.

RESULTS

A total of 548 patients were enrolled (273 patients in the genotype-guided group and 275 in the control group). The follow-up was at least 10 weeks for 239 patients in the genotype-guided group and 245 in the control group. The percentage of time in the therapeutic INR range was 61.6% for patients receiving genotype-guided dosing and 60.2% for those receiving clinically guided dosing (P=0.52). There were no significant differences between the two groups for several secondary outcomes. The percentage of time in the therapeutic range during the first 4 weeks after the initiation of treatment in the two groups was 52.8% and 47.5% (P=0.02), respectively. There were no significant differences with respect to the incidence of bleeding or thromboembolic events.

CONCLUSIONS

Genotype-guided dosing of acenocoumarol or phenprocoumon did not improve the percentage of time in the therapeutic INR range during the 12 weeks after the initiation of therapy. (Funded by the European Commission Seventh Framework Programme and others; EU-PACT ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01119261 and NCT01119274.).

A pharmacogenetic versus a clinical algorithm for warfarin dosing

BACKGROUND

The clinical utility of genotype-guided (pharmacogenetically based) dosing of warfarin has been tested only in small clinical trials or observational studies, with equivocal results.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 1015 patients to receive doses of warfarin during the first 5 days of therapy that were determined according to a dosing algorithm that included both clinical variables and genotype data or to one that included clinical variables only. All patients and clinicians were unaware of the dose of warfarin during the first 4 weeks of therapy. The primary outcome was the percentage of time that the international normalized ratio (INR) was in the therapeutic range from day 4 or 5 through day 28 of therapy.

RESULTS

At 4 weeks, the mean percentage of time in the therapeutic range was 45.2% in the genotype-guided group and 45.4% in the clinically guided group (adjusted mean difference, [genotype-guided group minus clinically guided group], -0.2; 95% confidence interval, -3.4 to 3.1; P=0.91). There also was no significant between-group difference among patients with a predicted dose difference between the two algorithms of 1 mg per day or more. There was, however, a significant interaction between dosing strategy and race (P=0.003). Among black patients, the mean percentage of time in the therapeutic range was less in the genotype-guided group than in the clinically guided group. The rates of the combined outcome of any INR of 4 or more, major bleeding, or thromboembolism did not differ significantly according to dosing strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

Genotype-guided dosing of warfarin did not improve anticoagulation control during the first 4 weeks of therapy. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; COAG ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00839657.).

Effect of CYP2C9, VKORC1, CYP4F2 and GGCX genetic variants on warfarin maintenance dose and explicating a new pharmacogenetic algorithm in South Indian population

OBJECTIVE

To determine the influence of genetic polymorphisms on warfarin maintenance dose and to explicate an algorithm using the pharmacogenetic and clinical factors to determine the maintenance and/or starting dose of warfarin in South Indian patients receiving warfarin therapy.

METHODS

Patients receiving stabilized warfarin therapy (n=257) were included in the study. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of CYP2C9 (rs1799853 and rs1057910), VKORC1 (rs9923231, rs7196161, rs2884737, rs9934438, rs8050894, rs2359612 and rs7294), CYP4F2 (rs2108622) and GGCX (rs11676382) were genotyped by the quantitative real time-PCR method.

RESULTS

The mean daily maintenance dose of warfarin was found to be 4.7 ± 2.1 mg/day. Patients with the CYP2C9*1/*2, *1/*3 and *2/*3 variant genotypes required a 51.0 (2.8 mg), 60.9 (2.3 mg) and 62.2 % (2.2 mg) lower daily maintenance dose of warfarin, respectively, than those patients with the CYP2C9*1/*1 wild-type genotype (5.2 mg) (p<0.0001). The genetic variants of CYP2C9, VKORC1 and GGCX were associated with decreased warfarin dose, except for rs7196161, rs7294 and rs2108622 which were associated with an increased warfarin dose. Genetic variations of CYP2C9 (*2 and *3), VKORC1 (rs9923231, rs7294, rs9934438 and rs2359612), CYP4F2, GGCX and non-genetic factors such as age, body weight, clinical status (post mechanical valve replacement) could explain up to 62.1 % of the overall variation (adjusted r (2) 60.2 %, p<0.0001) in warfarin maintenance dose.

CONCLUSION

Genetic polymorphisms of CYP2C9, VKORC1, CYP4F2 and GGCX are important predictive factors of warfarin maintenance dose, and the developed algorithm will be useful to predict the required maintenance and/or starting warfarin dose in South Indian populations.

Clinical effects of Xinmailong therapy in patients with chronic heart failure

In the last 100 years, intensive studies have been done on the identification of the systematic approaches to find the cure for the chronic heart failure, however the mystery remains unresolved due to its complicated pathogenesis and ineffective early diagnosis. The present investigation was aimed to evaluate the potential effects of the traditional chinese medicine, Xinmailong, on the chronic heart failure (CHF) patients as compared to the standard western medical treatment available so far. In our study, we selected two groups of voluntary CHF patients at the Xiangya Hospital, which were allowed to administrate Xinmailong or standard treatments, respectively. Another group of voluntary healthy individuals were recruited as the control group. The treatment effectiveness was measured by five symptomatic factors, i.e. angiotensin II (Ang_II), high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs_CRP), Left Ventricular End Systolic Volume Index (LVESVI), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT_proBNP), between the control group and the CHF patients at different stages of drug administration and in different treatment groups. The timeline for the full dose administration was set to 15 days and five measurements as indicated above were taken on every 0, 7th and 15th day of the drug administration respectively. In the conducted study, similar symptomatic measurements were observed on day 0 in both treatment groups, and slight improvements were observed on 7th day. It was observed that after a full course of drug administration for 15 days, both of the treatment groups achieved statistically significant improvements in all the five measures, but Xinmailong was found to be more (almost double) statistically significant as compared with the available drug treatments for chronic heart failure.