Explore the vast range of titles available.

This trial compared genotype-guided dosing with standard dosing in patients with atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism initiating warfarin anticoagulation. Genotype-guided dosing was associated with a higher percentage of time in the therapeutic INR range of 2.0 to 3.0. Warfarin has proved to be effective in the management of thromboembolic disease 1 but has a narrow therapeutic index, with wide variation among patients in the daily doses required; this variation can lead to either excessive or insufficient anticoagulation. 2 An increase in the international normalized ratio (INR) above the therapeutic range confers a predisposition to bleeding, 3 which is a common cause of hospital admission. 4 Polymorphisms in two genes, CYP2C9 (involved in the metabolism of the pharmacologically more potent S -enantiomer of warfarin) and VKORC1 (involved in the vitamin K cycle), 5 , 6 together with age and body-surface area, account for about 50% . . .

In this trial, 1015 patients were assigned to the use of either a genotype-guided algorithm or a clinically guided algorithm for warfarin dosing during the first 5 days. At 4 weeks, there was no significant difference in the percentage of time in the therapeutic INR range. The need for clinical trials before widespread adoption of genotype-guided drug dosing and selection remains widely debated. 1 – 4 Warfarin therapy has served as a model for the potential for pharmacogenetics to improve patient care. 1 Observational studies have identified two genes, CYP2C9 and VKORC1, that are associated with variation in warfarin maintenance doses. However, the clinical utility of starting warfarin at the maintenance dose predicted by genotype-guided algorithms has been tested only in small trials, none of which were definitive. 5 – 8 In contrast, observational studies have suggested potential benefits from genotype-guided dosing. 9 , 10 In addition, previous clinical trials could not determine . . .

Warfarin is the most widely used oral anticoagulant worldwide, but serious bleeding complications are common. We tested whether genetic variants can identify patients who are at increased risk of bleeding with warfarin and, consequently, those who would derive a greater safety benefit with a direct oral anticoagulant rather than warfarin. ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 was a randomised, double-blind trial in which patients with atrial fibrillation were assigned to warfarin to achieve a target international normalised ratio of 2·0–3·0, or to higher-dose (60 mg) or lower-dose (30 mg) edoxaban once daily. A subgroup of patients was included in a prespecified genetic analysis and genotyped for variants in CYP2C9 and VKORC1. The results were used to create three genotype functional bins (normal, sensitive, and highly sensitive responders to warfarin). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00781391. 14 348 patients were included in the genetic analysis. Of 4833 taking warfarin, 2982 (61·7%) were classified as normal responders, 1711 (35·4%) as sensitive responders, and 140 (2·9%) as highly sensitive responders. Compared with normal responders, sensitive and highly sensitive responders spent greater proportions of time over-anticoagulated in the first 90 days of treatment (median 2·2%, IQR 0–20·2; 8·4%, 0–25·8; and 18·3%, 0–32·6; ptrend<0·0001) and had increased risks of bleeding with warfarin (sensitive responders hazard ratio 1·31, 95% CI 1·05–1·64, p=0·0179; highly sensitive responders 2·66, 1·69–4·19, p<0·0001). Genotype added independent information beyond clinical risk scoring. During the first 90 days, when compared with warfarin, treatment with edoxaban reduced bleeding more so in sensitive and highly sensitive responders than in normal responders (higher-dose edoxaban pinteraction=0·0066; lower-dose edoxaban pinteraction=0·0036). After 90 days, the reduction in bleeding risk with edoxaban versus warfarin was similarly beneficial across genotypes. CYP2C9 and VKORC1 genotypes identify patients who are more likely to experience early bleeding with warfarin and who derive a greater early safety benefit from edoxaban compared with warfarin. Daiichi Sankyo.

A genotype-guided dosing algorithm was compared with a clinical dosing algorithm in patients starting anticoagulation with acenocoumarol or phenprocoumon. There was no difference between the two groups in the percentage of time in the therapeutic INR range of 2.0 to 3.0. Coumarin anticoagulant agents such as acenocoumarol, phenprocoumon, and warfarin are frequently used for the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation or for the treatment and prevention of venous thromboembolism. 1 In many countries, warfarin is used most frequently, but in some countries, acenocoumarol or phenprocoumon is prescribed. 2 Coumarin anticoagulant drugs have a narrow therapeutic window, and there are large interpatient and intrapatient variations in the dose requirement. The anticoagulant effect of these drugs is monitored by means of regular measurement of the international normalized ratio (INR). 3 A subtherapeutic INR is associated with an increased risk of stroke or thromboembolism, . . .

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate whether genetic variants can identify patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) at an increased risk of bleeding with warfarin.MethodsHokusai-venous thromboembolism (Hokusai VTE), a randomised, multinational, double-blind, non-inferiority trial, evaluated the safety and efficacy of edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with VTE initially treated with heparin. In this subanalysis of Hokusai VTE, patients genotyped for variants in CYP2C9 and VKORC1 genes were divided into three warfarin sensitivity types (normal, sensitive and highly sensitive) based on their genotypes. An exploratory analysis was also conducted comparing normal responders to pooled sensitive responders (ie, sensitive and highly sensitive responders).ResultsThe analysis included 47.7% (3956/8292) of the patients in Hokusai VTE. Among 1978 patients randomised to warfarin, 63.0% (1247) were normal responders, 34.1% (675) were sensitive responders and 2.8% (56) were highly sensitive responders. Compared with normal responders, sensitive and highly sensitive responders had heparin therapy discontinued earlier (p<0.001), had a decreased final weekly warfarin dose (p<0.001), spent more time overanticoagulated (p<0.001) and had an increased bleeding risk with warfarin (sensitive responders HR 1.38 [95% CI 1.11 to 1.71], p=0.0035; highly sensitive responders 1.79 [1.09 to 2.99]; p=0.0252).ConclusionIn this study, CYP2C9 and VKORC1 genotypes identified patients with VTE at increased bleeding risk with warfarin.Trial registration numberNCT00986154.

This prospective, single-blind, randomized study was designed to evaluate the effect of genotype-based warfarin dosing compared with standard warfarin dosing in Korean patients with mechanical cardiac valves. Patients were assigned to either the genotype-based dosing group or the standard dosing group using stratified block randomization. The genotype-based dosing equation was adopted from a previous study which included VKORC1 rs9934438, CYP2C9 rs1057910, CYP4F2 rs2108622, and age. Primary outcomes included the percentage of time in the therapeutic range (pTTR): (i) during the first week following initiation of warfarin therapy, (ii) during hospitalization and (iii) until the first outpatient visit. A total of 91 patients were included in the analysis, 42 treated with genotype-based warfarin dosing and 49 treated with standard warfarin dosing. The genotype frequency differences of the three SNPs included in this study (ie, VKORC1, CYP2C9, CYP4F2), between the genotype-based dosing and standard dosing groups were not different. The genotype-based dosing group trended toward higher pTTR when compared with the standard dosing group, although this difference was not statistically significant. In patients with aortic valve replacement, TTR Traditional and TTR Rosendaal were significantly higher in the genotype-based dosing group when compared with the standard dosing group during the first week following treatment initiation [ie, 58.5% vs. 38.1% (p = 0.009) and 64.0% vs. 44.6% (p = 0.012), respectively]. Based on the results, the genotype-guided dosing did not offer a significant clinical advantage, but a possible benefit in patients with aortic valve replacement has been suggested.

It was aimed to underline the importance and explain the meaning of genetic testing in warfarin dosing and investigate and evaluate the contributions of the CYP2C9, VKORC1, and CYP4F2 variants in a Turkish population. Two hundred patients were genotyped for CYP2C9 (rs1799853, rs1057910 and rs56165452), VKORC1 (rs9934438, rs8050894, rs9923231, rs7294 and rs2359612) and CYP4F2 (rs2108622), yet, only 127 patients were found suitable for further evaluation in terms of their personal response to warfarin due to long term usage and available INR and dose usage information. The DNA sequences were determined by the ABI PRISM 3100 Genetic Analyzer to 3130xl System (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, California). Warfarin dose application suggestions by warfaringdosing.org, FDA and MayoClinic were followed. Dose requirements in the Turkish population were found higher than the suggested doses by warfarindosing.org. The multivariate logistic regression analysis reveals the utilization of VCORC1 genetic evaluation is valuable in warfarin dosing (low and moderate vs. high) in this study (p < 0.001). The present study provides findings for clinicians to adapt the genetic data to the daily practice. We observed that the VKORC1 variant showed a more potent impact in warfarin dosing in this study.

We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenetic-guided dosing of warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in the United Kingdom and Sweden. Data from EU-PACT, a randomized controlled trial in newly diagnosed AF patients, were used to model the incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained by pharmacogenetic-guided warfarin dosing versus standard treatment over a lifetime horizon. Incremental lifetime costs were £26 and 382 Swedish kronor (SEK) and incremental QALYs were 0.0039 and 0.0015 in the United Kingdom and Sweden, respectively. The corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were £6 702 and 253 848 SEK per QALY gained. The ICER was below the willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per QALY gained in 93% of the simulations in the United Kingdom and below 500 000 SEK in 67% of the simulations in Sweden. Our data suggest that pharmacogenetic-guided dosing of warfarin is a cost-effective strategy to improve outcomes of patients with AF treated with warfarin in the United Kingdom and in Sweden.

This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of genotype-guided warfarin dosing. A total of 109 adults were randomized to receive initial dosing as determined by an algorithm containing genetic ( and ) plus clinical information or only clinical information. Primary end points were the number of anticoagulation visits and the time in therapeutic range (TTR) over 90 days. Secondary end points included time to therapeutic dose, International Normalized Ratios of >4, emergency visits, hospitalizations, hemorrhagic events, thrombotic events and mortality. Neither primary end point was significantly different between groups (anticoagulation visits: 6.96 vs 6.37, p = 0.51; TTR: 0.40 vs 0.43, p = 0.59). Fewer emergency visits, hospitalizations, major hemorrhagic events, thrombotic events and deaths occurred in the genetic plus clinical group than in the clinical only group, but these differences were not statistically significant. Genotype-guided dosing did not decrease the number of anticoagulation visits or improve TTR. Our trial was not powered to detect anything but large differences for utilization and health outcomes. Original submitted 7 January 2013; Revision submitted 27 July 2013

PurposeA previous trial failed to demonstrate the superiority of a demographic-genetic algorithm in predicting warfarin (W) dose over a standard clinical approach. The purpose of the present study is to re-analyse the results in subgroups of patients with differing baseline sensitivity to W, integrated with additional pharmacokinetic data.MethodsThe original trial allocated 180 treatment-naïve patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation to a control arm (CTL, n = 92) or a genetic-guided arm (GEN, n = 88). Before starting anticoagulation treatment, all patients were genotyped for CYP2C9, VKORC1 and CYP4F2 variants and classified into four quartiles (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4) according to the algorithm-predicted W maintenance dose. International normalised ratios (INR) and plasma concentrations of S-warfarin [S-W]s and R-warfarin [R-W]s were measured at baseline and on days 5, 7, 9, 12, 15 and 19 of therapy.ResultsIn the lowest dose quartile (Q1), the number of INRs > 3 and mean INR values on days 5 and 7 were significantly higher in CTL than in GEN. In Q3 and Q4, the mean INR values reached therapeutic level (> 2) 2 days later in CTL than in GEN. During follow-up, the mean time courses of INRs and [S-W]s in GEN were remarkably stable in all dose quartiles. Thus, mean changes from starting to final doses were significantly smaller in GEN than in CTL. Plasma concentrations of R-W (a partially active enantiomer) steadily increased from day 5 to day 19 in all Qs in both CTL and GEN, except in the Q1 CTL group, due to the marked dose reduction required.ConclusionsThis analysis showed that the demographic-genetic algorithm used to predict the W dose can identify patients with differing degrees of sensitivity to W and to ‘normalise’ their average anticoagulant responses. The progressive rise in [R-W]s throughout the 19-day follow-up indicates that the (partial) contribution of R-W to the W anticoagulant effect changes continually during the early phase of treatment.