Download PDF
Thromb Haemost 2015; 114(04): 768-777
DOI: 10.1160/TH15-01-0071
New Technologies, Diagnostic Tools and Drugs
Schattauer GmbH

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

A systematic review and meta-analysis
Emilie P. Belley-Cote
1   Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
,
Hasib Hanif
2   Division of Cardiac Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
,
Frederick D’Aragon
1   Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
3   Anaesthesiology Department, Sherbrooke University, Quebec, Canada
,
John W. Eikelboom
4   Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
5   Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
,
Jeffrey L. Anderson
6   Intermountain Medical Center, Murray, Utah, USA
,
Mark Borgman
7   PGXL Labs, Louisville, Kentucky, USA
,
Daniel E. Jonas
8   University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
,
Stephen E. Kimmel
9   University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
,
Vangelis G. Manolopoulos
10   Laboratory of Pharmacology, Democritus University of Thrace Medical School, Alexandroupolis, Greece
,
Ekaterina Baranova
11   Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
,
Anke H. Maitland-van der Zee
11   Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
,
Munir Pirmohamed
12   University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
,
Richard P. Whitlock
1   Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
2   Division of Cardiac Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
5   Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received: 25 January 2015

Accepted after major revision: 03 April 2015

Publication Date:
29 November 2017 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

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.

Keywords

Anticoagulants - genetics - meta-analysis - pharmacogenomics - warfarin

* Institution where the work was performed: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.


 

  • References

  • 1 Hylek EM, Singer DE. Risk factors for intracranial hemorrhage in outpatients taking warfarin. Ann Intern Med 1994; 120: 897-902.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Connolly SJ, Pogue J, Eikelboom J. et al. Benefit of oral anticoagulant over anti-platelet therapy in atrial fibrillation depends on the quality of international normalized ratio control achieved by centers and countries as measured by time in therapeutic range. Circulation 2008; 118: 2029-2037.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Veeger NJ, Piersma-Wichers M, Tijssen JG. et al. Individual time within target range in patients treated with vitamin K antagonists: main determinant of quality of anticoagulation and predictor of clinical outcome. A retrospective study of 2300 consecutive patients with venous thromboembolism. Br J Haematol 2005; 128: 513-519.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Gallego P, Roldan V, Marin F. et al. Cessation of oral anticoagulation in relation to mortality and the risk of thrombotic events in patients with atrial fibrillation. Thromb Haemost 2013; 110: 1189-1198.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 De Caterina R, Husted S, Wallentin L. et al. Vitamin K antagonists in heart disease: current status and perspectives (Section III). Position paper of the ESC Working Group on Thrombosis--Task Force on Anticoagulants in Heart Disease. Thromb Haemost 2013; 110: 1087-1107.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Guyatt GH, Akl EA, Crowther M. et al. American College of Chest Physicians Antithrombotic T et al. Executive summary: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest 2012; 141 (Suppl. 02) 7S-47S.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Epstein RS, Moyer TP, Aubert RE. et al. Warfarin genotyping reduces hospitalization rates results from the MM-WES (Medco-Mayo Warfarin Effectiveness study). J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 55: 2804-2812.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Anderson JL, Horne BD, Stevens SM. et al. A randomized and clinical effectiveness trial comparing two pharmacogenetic algorithms and standard care for individualizing warfarin dosing (CoumaGen-II). Circulation 2012; 125: 1997-2005.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Wadelius M, Chen LY, Lindh JD. et al. The largest prospective warfarin-treated cohort supports genetic forecasting. Blood 2009; 113: 784-792.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Borgman MP, Pendleton RC, McMillin GA. et al. Prospective pilot trial of PerMIT versus standard anticoagulation service management of patients initiating oral anticoagulation. Thromb Haemost 2012; 108: 561-569.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Pirmohamed M, Burnside G, Eriksson N. et al. A randomized trial of genotype-guided dosing of warfarin. N Engl J Med 2013; 369: 2294-2303.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kimmel SE, French B, Kasner SE. et al. A pharmacogenetic versus a clinical algorithm for warfarin dosing. N Engl J Med 2013; 369: 2283-2293.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Verhoef TI, Ragia G, de Boer A. et al. A randomized trial of genotype-guided dosing of acenocoumarol and phenprocoumon. N Engl J Med 2013; 369: 2304-2312.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Jonas DE, Evans JP, McLeod HL. et al. Impact of genotype-guided dosing on anticoagulation visits for adults starting warfarin: a randomized controlled trial. Pharmacogenomics 2013; 14: 1593-1603.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Hillman MA, Wilke RA, Yale SH. et al. A prospective, randomized pilot trial of model-based warfarin dose initiation using CYP2C9 genotype and clinical data. Clin Med Res 2005; 3: 137-145.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Stergiopoulos K, Brown DL. Genotype-Guided vs Clinical Dosing of Warfarin and Its Analogues: Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. J Am Med Assoc Intern Med 2014; 174: 1330-1338.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Li X, Yang J, Wang X. et al. Clinical benefits of pharmacogenetic algorithm-based warfarin dosing: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Thromb Res. 2015 Epub ahead of print.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Franchini M, Mengoli C, Cruciani M. et al. Effects on bleeding complications of pharmacogenetic testing for initial dosing of vitamin K antagonists: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thromb Haemost 2014; 12: 1480-1487.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC. et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Br Med J 2011; 343: d5928.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ. et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 401-406.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Wu C, Alotaibi GS, Alsaleh K. et al. Case fatality of bleeding and recurrent venous thromboembolism during, initial therapy with direct oral anticoagulants: A systematic review. Thromb Res. 2014 Epub ahead of print.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Huang SW, Chen HS, Wang XQ. et al. Validation of VKORC1 and CYP2C9 genotypes on interindividual warfarin maintenance dose: a prospective study in Chinese patients. Pharmacogenet Genomics 2009; 19: 226-234.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Wang M, Lang X, Cui S. et al. Clinical application of pharmacogenetic-based warfarin-dosing algorithm in patients of Han nationality after rheumatic valve replacement: a randomized and controlled trial. Intern J Med Sci 2012; 9: 472-479.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Rosendaal FR, Cannegieter SC, van der Meer FJ. et al. A method to determine the optimal intensity of oral anticoagulant therapy. Thromb Haemost 1993; 69: 236-239.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics Med 2002; 21: 1539-1558.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Sterne JA, Gavaghan D, Egger M. Publication and related bias in meta-analysis: power of statistical tests and prevalence in the literature. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53: 1119-1129.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Akl EA, Briel M, You JJ. et al. Potential impact on estimated treatment effects of information lost to follow-up in randomised controlled trials (LOST-IT): systematic review. Br Med J 2012; 344: e2809.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Burmester JK, Berg RL, Yale SH. et al. A randomized controlled trial of geno-type-based Coumadin initiation. Genetics Med 2011; 13: 509-518.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Caraco Y, Blotnick S, Muszkat M. CYP2C9 genotype-guided warfarin prescribing enhances the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation: a prospective randomized controlled study. Clin Pharmacol Therap 2008; 83: 460-470.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Anderson JL, Horne BD, Stevens SM. et al. Randomized trial of genotype-guided versus standard warfarin dosing in patients initiating oral anticoagulation. Circulation 2007; 116: 2563-2570.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Radhakrishnan A, Vido D, Tayur S. et al. Genotype Guided Therapeutic Dosing of Warfarin in Geriatric Patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012; 59: E1696.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 McMillin GA, Melis R, Wilson A. et al. Gene-based warfarin dosing compared with standard of care practices in an orthopedic surgery population: a prospective, parallel cohort study. Therap Drug Monitor 2010; 32: 338-345.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Connolly SJ, Ezekowitz MD, Yusuf S. et al. Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 2009; 361: 1139-1151.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Investigators E, Bauersachs R, Berkowitz SD. et al. Oral rivaroxaban for symptomatic venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 2499-2510.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Man-Son-Hing M, Laupacis A, O’Connor A. et al. Warfarin for atrial fibrillation. The patient’s perspective. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156: 1841-1848.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Jones M, McEwan P, Morgan CL. et al. Evaluation of the pattern of treatment, level of anticoagulation control, and outcome of treatment with warfarin in patients with non-valvar atrial fibrillation: a record linkage study in a large British population. Heart 2005; 91: 472-477.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Matchar DB, Jacobson A, Dolor R. et al. Effect of home testing of international normalized ratio on clinical events. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 1608-1620.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 van Walraven C, Oake N, Coyle D. et al. Changes in surrogate outcomes can be translated into clinical outcomes using a Monte Carlo model. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62: 1306-1315.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Sun X, Briel M, Walter SD, Guyatt GH. Is a subgroup effect believable? Updating criteria to evaluate the credibility of subgroup analyses. Br Med J 2010; 340: c117.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Kovacs MJ, Rodger M, Anderson DR. et al. Comparison of 10-mg and 5-mg warfarin initiation nomograms together with low-molecular-weight heparin for outpatient treatment of acute venous thromboembolism. A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 2003; 138: 714-719.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Ageno W, Johnson J, Nowacki B. et al. A computer generated induction system for hospitalized patients starting on oral anticoagulant therapy. Thromb Hae-most 2000; 83: 849-852.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration. 2011 Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org
    PubMedGoogle Scholar