PURPOSE: To quantify the influence of common cytochrome P450 2C9 (CYP2C9) polymorphisms on warfarin dose requirements. METHODS: A systematic review and a meta-analysis, calculating the warfarin dose reduction associated with the five most common variant CYP2C9 genotypes. RESULTS: Thirty-nine studies (7,907 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to the CYP2C9*1/*1 genotype, the CYP2C9*1/*2, CYP2C9*1/*3, CYP2C9*2/*2, CYP2C9*2/*3, and CYP2C9*3/*3 required warfarin doses that were 19.6 (95% confidence interval 17.4, 21.9), 33.7 (29.4, 38.1), 36.0 (29.9, 42.0), 56.7 (49.1, 64.3), and 78.1% (72.0, 84.3) lower, respectively. The impact of CYP2C9 genotype tended to be larger in patients without interacting drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Previous studies have rarely been powered to determine the quantitative influence of specific CYP2C9 genotypes on warfarin dose requirements. The results from our pooled analysis are likely to be the most accurate to date and the methodology could serve as a model for future pharmacogenetic meta-analyses.
PURPOSE: To quantify the influence of common cytochrome P450 2C9 (CYP2C9) polymorphisms on warfarin dose requirements. METHODS: A systematic review and a meta-analysis, calculating the warfarin dose reduction associated with the five most common variant CYP2C9 genotypes. RESULTS: Thirty-nine studies (7,907 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to the CYP2C9*1/*1 genotype, the CYP2C9*1/*2, CYP2C9*1/*3, CYP2C9*2/*2, CYP2C9*2/*3, and CYP2C9*3/*3 required warfarin doses that were 19.6 (95% confidence interval 17.4, 21.9), 33.7 (29.4, 38.1), 36.0 (29.9, 42.0), 56.7 (49.1, 64.3), and 78.1% (72.0, 84.3) lower, respectively. The impact of CYP2C9 genotype tended to be larger in patients without interacting drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Previous studies have rarely been powered to determine the quantitative influence of specific CYP2C9 genotypes on warfarin dose requirements. The results from our pooled analysis are likely to be the most accurate to date and the methodology could serve as a model for future pharmacogenetic meta-analyses.
Authors: Majid Moridani; Lei Fu; Rita Selby; Francisco Yun; Tatjana Sukovic; Betty Wong; David E C Cole Journal: Clin Biochem Date: 2006-04-21 Impact factor: 3.281
Authors: John F Carlquist; Benjamin D Horne; Joseph B Muhlestein; Donald L Lappé; Bryant M Whiting; Matthew J Kolek; Jessica L Clarke; Brent C James; Jeffrey L Anderson Journal: J Thromb Thrombolysis Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 2.300
Authors: Mitchell K Higashi; David L Veenstra; L Midori Kondo; Ann K Wittkowsky; Sengkeo L Srinouanprachanh; Fred M Farin; Allan E Rettie Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-04-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: M Wadelius; K Sörlin; O Wallerman; J Karlsson; Q-Y Yue; P K E Magnusson; C Wadelius; H Melhus Journal: Pharmacogenomics J Date: 2004 Impact factor: 3.550
Authors: Mia Wadelius; Leslie Y Chen; Jonatan D Lindh; Niclas Eriksson; Mohammed J R Ghori; Suzannah Bumpstead; Lennart Holm; Ralph McGinnis; Anders Rane; Panos Deloukas Journal: Blood Date: 2008-06-23 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Simone Rost; Andreas Fregin; Vytautas Ivaskevicius; Ernst Conzelmann; Konstanze Hörtnagel; Hans-Joachim Pelz; Knut Lappegard; Erhard Seifried; Inge Scharrer; Edward G D Tuddenham; Clemens R Müller; Tim M Strom; Johannes Oldenburg Journal: Nature Date: 2004-02-05 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Y Liu; H Jeong; H Takahashi; K Drozda; S R Patel; N L Shapiro; E A Nutescu; L H Cavallari Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2012-02-29 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Walter Ageno; Alexander S Gallus; Ann Wittkowsky; Mark Crowther; Elaine M Hylek; Gualtiero Palareti Journal: Chest Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 9.410