OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of genetic tables and formal pharmacogenetic algorithms for warfarin dosing. BACKGROUND: Pharmacogenetic algorithms based on regression equations can predict warfarin dose, but they require detailed mathematical calculations. A simpler alternative, recently added to the warfarin label by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, is to use genotype-stratified tables to estimate warfarin dose. This table may potentially increase the use of pharmacogenetic warfarin dosing in clinical practice; however, its accuracy has not been quantified. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of 1,378 patients from 3 anticoagulation centers was conducted. Inclusion criteria were stable therapeutic warfarin dose and complete genetic and clinical data. Five dose prediction methods were compared: 2 methods using only clinical information (empiric 5 mg/day dosing and a formal clinical algorithm), 2 genetic tables (the new warfarin label table and a table based on mean dose stratified by genotype), and 1 formal pharmacogenetic algorithm, using both clinical and genetic information. For each method, the proportion of patients whose predicted doses were within 20% of their actual therapeutic doses was determined. Dosing methods were compared using McNemar's chi-square test. RESULTS: Warfarin dose prediction was significantly more accurate (all p < 0.001) with the pharmacogenetic algorithm (52%) than with all other methods: empiric dosing (37%; odds ratio [OR]: 2.2), clinical algorithm (39%; OR: 2.2), warfarin label (43%; OR: 1.8), and genotype mean dose table (44%; OR: 1.9). CONCLUSIONS: Although genetic tables predicted warfarin dose better than empiric dosing, formal pharmacogenetic algorithms were the most accurate. Copyright Â
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of genetic tables and formal pharmacogenetic algorithms for warfarin dosing. BACKGROUND: Pharmacogenetic algorithms based on regression equations can predict warfarin dose, but they require detailed mathematical calculations. A simpler alternative, recently added to the warfarin label by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, is to use genotype-stratified tables to estimate warfarin dose. This table may potentially increase the use of pharmacogenetic warfarin dosing in clinical practice; however, its accuracy has not been quantified. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of 1,378 patients from 3 anticoagulation centers was conducted. Inclusion criteria were stable therapeutic warfarin dose and complete genetic and clinical data. Five dose prediction methods were compared: 2 methods using only clinical information (empiric 5 mg/day dosing and a formal clinical algorithm), 2 genetic tables (the new warfarin label table and a table based on mean dose stratified by genotype), and 1 formal pharmacogenetic algorithm, using both clinical and genetic information. For each method, the proportion of patients whose predicted doses were within 20% of their actual therapeutic doses was determined. Dosing methods were compared using McNemar's chi-square test. RESULTS:Warfarin dose prediction was significantly more accurate (all p < 0.001) with the pharmacogenetic algorithm (52%) than with all other methods: empiric dosing (37%; odds ratio [OR]: 2.2), clinical algorithm (39%; OR: 2.2), warfarin label (43%; OR: 1.8), and genotype mean dose table (44%; OR: 1.9). CONCLUSIONS: Although genetic tables predicted warfarin dose better than empiric dosing, formal pharmacogenetic algorithms were the most accurate. Copyright Â
Authors: Deepak Voora; Charles Eby; Mark W Linder; Paul E Milligan; Bonny L Bukaveckas; Howard L McLeod; William Maloney; John Clohisy; R Steven Burnett; Leonard Grosso; Susan K Gatchel; Brian F Gage Journal: Thromb Haemost Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 5.249
Authors: R Loebstein; H Yonath; D Peleg; S Almog; M Rotenberg; A Lubetsky; J Roitelman; D Harats; H Halkin; D Ezra Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: John F Carlquist; Benjamin D Horne; Chrissa Mower; James Park; John Huntinghouse; Jason T McKinney; Joseph B Muhlestein; Jeffrey L Anderson Journal: J Thromb Thrombolysis Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 2.300
Authors: P A Lenzini; G R Grice; P E Milligan; M B Dowd; S Subherwal; E Deych; C S Eby; C R King; R M Porche-Sorbet; C V Murphy; R Marchand; E A Millican; R L Barrack; J C Clohisy; K Kronquist; S K Gatchel; B F Gage Journal: J Thromb Haemost Date: 2008-07-24 Impact factor: 5.824
Authors: H Schelleman; J Chen; Z Chen; J Christie; C W Newcomb; C M Brensinger; M Price; A S Whitehead; C Kealey; C F Thorn; F F Samaha; S E Kimmel Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2008-07-02 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: T E Klein; R B Altman; N Eriksson; B F Gage; S E Kimmel; M-T M Lee; N A Limdi; D Page; D M Roden; M J Wagner; M D Caldwell; J A Johnson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-02-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Caroline S Fox; Jennifer L Hall; Donna K Arnett; Euan A Ashley; Christian Delles; Mary B Engler; Mason W Freeman; Julie A Johnson; David E Lanfear; Stephen B Liggett; Aldons J Lusis; Joseph Loscalzo; Calum A MacRae; Kiran Musunuru; L Kristin Newby; Christopher J O'Donnell; Stephen S Rich; Andre Terzic Journal: Circulation Date: 2015-04-16 Impact factor: 29.690