27
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A Review of A Priori Regression Models for Warfarin Maintenance Dose Prediction

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          A number of a priori warfarin dosing algorithms, derived using linear regression methods, have been proposed. Although these dosing algorithms may have been validated using patients derived from the same centre, rarely have they been validated using a patient cohort recruited from another centre. In order to undertake external validation, two cohorts were utilised. One cohort formed by patients from a prospective trial and the second formed by patients in the control arm of the EU-PACT trial. Of these, 641 patients were identified as having attained stable dosing and formed the dataset used for validation. Predicted maintenance doses from six criterion fulfilling regression models were then compared to individual patient stable warfarin dose. Predictive ability was assessed with reference to several statistics including the R-square and mean absolute error. The six regression models explained different amounts of variability in the stable maintenance warfarin dose requirements of the patients in the two validation cohorts; adjusted R-squared values ranged from 24.2% to 68.6%. An overview of the summary statistics demonstrated that no one dosing algorithm could be considered optimal. The larger validation cohort from the prospective trial produced more consistent statistics across the six dosing algorithms. The study found that all the regression models performed worse in the validation cohort when compared to the derivation cohort. Further, there was little difference between regression models that contained pharmacogenetic coefficients and algorithms containing just non-pharmacogenetic coefficients. The inconsistency of results between the validation cohorts suggests that unaccounted population specific factors cause variability in dosing algorithm performance. Better methods for dosing that take into account inter- and intra-individual variability, at the initiation and maintenance phases of warfarin treatment, are needed.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A randomized trial of genotype-guided dosing of warfarin.

          The level of anticoagulation in response to a fixed-dose regimen of warfarin is difficult to predict during the initiation of therapy. We prospectively compared the effect of genotype-guided dosing with that of standard dosing on anticoagulation control in patients starting warfarin therapy. We conducted a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving patients with atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism. Genotyping for CYP2C9*2, CYP2C9*3, and VKORC1 (-1639G→A) was performed with the use of a point-of-care test. For patients assigned to the genotype-guided group, warfarin doses were prescribed according to pharmacogenetic-based algorithms for the first 5 days. Patients in the control (standard dosing) group received a 3-day loading-dose regimen. After the initiation period, the treatment of all patients was managed according to routine clinical practice. The primary outcome measure was the percentage of time in the therapeutic range of 2.0 to 3.0 for the international normalized ratio (INR) during the first 12 weeks after warfarin initiation. A total of 455 patients were recruited, with 227 randomly assigned to the genotype-guided group and 228 assigned to the control group. The mean percentage of time in the therapeutic range was 67.4% in the genotype-guided group as compared with 60.3% in the control group (adjusted difference, 7.0 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 3.3 to 10.6; P<0.001). There were significantly fewer incidences of excessive anticoagulation (INR ≥4.0) in the genotype-guided group. The median time to reach a therapeutic INR was 21 days in the genotype-guided group as compared with 29 days in the control group (P<0.001). Pharmacogenetic-based dosing was associated with a higher percentage of time in the therapeutic INR range than was standard dosing during the initiation of warfarin therapy. (Funded by the European Commission Seventh Framework Programme and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01119300.).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A pharmacogenetic versus a clinical algorithm for warfarin dosing.

            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. 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. 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. 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.).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The impact of CYP2C9 and VKORC1 genetic polymorphism and patient characteristics upon warfarin dose requirements: proposal for a new dosing regimen.

              Current dosing algorithms do not account for genetic and environmental factors for warfarin dose determinations. This study investigated the contribution of age, CYP2C9 and VKORC1 genotype, and body size to warfarin-dose requirements. Studied were 297 patients with stable anticoagulation with a target international normalized ratio (INR) of 2.0 to 3.0. Genetic analyses for CYP2C9 (*2 and *3 alleles) and VKORC1 (-1639 polymorphism) were performed and venous INR and plasma R- and S-warfarin concentrations determined. The mean warfarin daily dose requirement was highest in CYP2C9 homozygous wild-type patients, compared with those with the variant *2 and *3 alleles (P < .001) and highest in patients with the VKORC1 (position -1639) GG genotype compared with those with the GA genotype and the AA genotype (P < .001). Mean warfarin daily dose requirements fell by 0.5 to 0.7 mg per decade between the ages of 20 to 90 years. Age, height, and CYP2C9 genotype significantly contributed to S-warfarin and total warfarin clearance, whereas only age and body size significantly contributed to R-warfarin clearance. The multivariate regression model including the variables of age, CYP2C9 and VKORC1 genotype, and height produced the best model for estimating warfarin dose (R2 = 55%). Based upon the data, a new warfarin dosing regimen has been developed. The validity of the dosing regimen was confirmed in a second cohort of patients on warfarin therapy.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, USA )
                1932-6203
                2014
                12 December 2014
                : 9
                : 12
                : e114896
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
                [2 ]Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
                [3 ]Department of Molecular and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
                [4 ]Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
                Michigan State University, United States of America
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Analyzed the data: BF. Wrote the paper: BF AJ MP SL.

                Article
                PONE-D-14-06614
                10.1371/journal.pone.0114896
                4264860
                25501765
                90f607a9-90d3-4092-ad90-43ac1c2e01bd
                Copyright @ 2014

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 10 March 2014
                : 14 November 2014
                Page count
                Pages: 20
                Funding
                The authors have no support or funding to report.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Genetics
                Genomics
                Genomic Medicine
                Genetic Testing
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Clinical Genetics
                Clinical Medicine
                Pharmacology
                Drug Information
                Physical Sciences
                Mathematics
                Statistics (Mathematics)
                Biostatistics
                Statistical Methods

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article