Scott E Kasner1, Le Wang2, Benjamin French2, Steven R Messé2, Jonas Ellenberg2, Stephen E Kimmel2. 1. Department of Neurology and the Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Electronic address: kasner@mail.med.upenn.edu. 2. Department of Neurology and the Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dosing algorithms for warfarin incorporate clinical and genetic factors, but human intervention to overrule algorithm-based dosing may occasionally be required. The frequency and reasons for varying from algorithmic warfarin management have not been well studied. METHODS: We analyzed a prospective cohort of 1015 participants from the Clarification of Optimal Anticoagulation through Genetics trial who were randomized to eitherpharmacogenetic- or clinically-guided warfarin dosing algorithms. Clinicians and participants were blinded to dose but not international normalized ratio (INR) during the first 28 days. If an issue arose that raised concern for clinicians but might not be adequately accounted for by the protocol, then clinicians contacted the unblinded medical monitor who could approve exceptions if clinically justified. All granted exceptions were logged and categorized. We analyzed the relationships between dosing exceptions and both baseline characteristics and the outcome of percentage of time in the therapeutic INR range during the first 4 weeks. RESULTS: Sixteen percent of participants required at least one exception to the protocol-defined warfarin dose (15% in the genotype arm and 17% in the clinical arm). Ninety percent of dose exceptions occurred after the first 5 days of dosing. The only baseline characteristic associated with dose exceptions was congestive heart failure (odds ratio 2.12, 95% confidence interval, 1.49-3.02, P <.001). Neither study arm nor genotype was associated with dose exceptions. CONCLUSION: Despite rigorous algorithms, human intervention is frequently employed in the early management of warfarin dosing. Congestive heart failure at baseline appears to predict early exceptions to standardized protocol management.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Dosing algorithms for warfarin incorporate clinical and genetic factors, but human intervention to overrule algorithm-based dosing may occasionally be required. The frequency and reasons for varying from algorithmic warfarin management have not been well studied. METHODS: We analyzed a prospective cohort of 1015 participants from the Clarification of Optimal Anticoagulation through Genetics trial who were randomized to either pharmacogenetic- or clinically-guided warfarin dosing algorithms. Clinicians and participants were blinded to dose but not international normalized ratio (INR) during the first 28 days. If an issue arose that raised concern for clinicians but might not be adequately accounted for by the protocol, then clinicians contacted the unblinded medical monitor who could approve exceptions if clinically justified. All granted exceptions were logged and categorized. We analyzed the relationships between dosing exceptions and both baseline characteristics and the outcome of percentage of time in the therapeutic INR range during the first 4 weeks. RESULTS: Sixteen percent of participants required at least one exception to the protocol-defined warfarin dose (15% in the genotype arm and 17% in the clinical arm). Ninety percent of dose exceptions occurred after the first 5 days of dosing. The only baseline characteristic associated with dose exceptions was congestive heart failure (odds ratio 2.12, 95% confidence interval, 1.49-3.02, P <.001). Neither study arm nor genotype was associated with dose exceptions. CONCLUSION: Despite rigorous algorithms, human intervention is frequently employed in the early management of warfarin dosing. Congestive heart failure at baseline appears to predict early exceptions to standardized protocol management.
Authors: Stephen E Kimmel; Benjamin French; Jeffrey L Anderson; Brian F Gage; Julie A Johnson; Yves D Rosenberg; Nancy L Geller; Scott E Kasner; Charles S Eby; Jungnam Joo; Michael D Caldwell; Samuel Z Goldhaber; Robert G Hart; Denise Cifelli; Rosemary Madigan; Colleen M Brensinger; Suzanne Goldberg; Robert M Califf; Jonas H Ellenberg Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2013-07-12 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Bartosz Grzymala-Lubanski; Sara Själander; Henrik Renlund; Peter J Svensson; Anders Själander Journal: Thromb Res Date: 2012-12-08 Impact factor: 3.944
Authors: Stephen E Kimmel; Benjamin French; Scott E Kasner; Julie A Johnson; Jeffrey L Anderson; Brian F Gage; Yves D Rosenberg; Charles S Eby; Rosemary A Madigan; Robert B McBane; Sherif Z Abdel-Rahman; Scott M Stevens; Steven Yale; Emile R Mohler; Margaret C Fang; Vinay Shah; Richard B Horenstein; Nita A Limdi; James A S Muldowney; Jaspal Gujral; Patrice Delafontaine; Robert J Desnick; Thomas L Ortel; Henny H Billett; Robert C Pendleton; Nancy L Geller; Jonathan L Halperin; Samuel Z Goldhaber; Michael D Caldwell; Robert M Califf; Jonas H Ellenberg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-11-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Christopher B Granger; John H Alexander; John J V McMurray; Renato D Lopes; Elaine M Hylek; Michael Hanna; Hussein R Al-Khalidi; Jack Ansell; Dan Atar; Alvaro Avezum; M Cecilia Bahit; Rafael Diaz; J Donald Easton; Justin A Ezekowitz; Greg Flaker; David Garcia; Margarida Geraldes; Bernard J Gersh; Sergey Golitsyn; Shinya Goto; Antonio G Hermosillo; Stefan H Hohnloser; John Horowitz; Puneet Mohan; Petr Jansky; Basil S Lewis; Jose Luis Lopez-Sendon; Prem Pais; Alexander Parkhomenko; Freek W A Verheugt; Jun Zhu; Lars Wallentin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-08-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Stuart J Connolly; Michael D Ezekowitz; Salim Yusuf; John Eikelboom; Jonas Oldgren; Amit Parekh; Janice Pogue; Paul A Reilly; Ellison Themeles; Jeanne Varrone; Susan Wang; Marco Alings; Denis Xavier; Jun Zhu; Rafael Diaz; Basil S Lewis; Harald Darius; Hans-Christoph Diener; Campbell D Joyner; Lars Wallentin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-08-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: L Poller; M Keown; S Ibrahim; G Lowe; M Moia; A G Turpie; C Roberts; A M H P van den Besselaar; F J M van der Meer; A Tripodi; G Palareti; C Shiach; S Bryan; M Samama; M Burgess-Wilson; A Heagerty; P Maccallum; D Wright; J Jespersen Journal: J Thromb Haemost Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 5.824
Authors: B F Gage; C Eby; J A Johnson; E Deych; M J Rieder; P M Ridker; P E Milligan; G Grice; P Lenzini; A E Rettie; C L Aquilante; L Grosso; S Marsh; T Langaee; L E Farnett; D Voora; D L Veenstra; R J Glynn; A Barrett; H L McLeod Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2008-02-27 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Sean van Diepen; Anne S Hellkamp; Manesh R Patel; Richard C Becker; Günter Breithardt; Werner Hacke; Jonathan L Halperin; Graeme J Hankey; Christopher C Nessel; Daniel E Singer; Scott D Berkowitz; Robert M Califf; Keith A A Fox; Kenneth W Mahaffey Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2013-05-30 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Sameer Ather; Aditi Shendre; T Mark Beasley; Todd Brown; Charles E Hill; Sumanth D Prabhu; Nita A Limdi Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2016-05-05 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Laith N Al-Eitan; Barakat Z Elsaqa; Ayah Y Almasri; Hatem A Aman; Rame H Khasawneh; Mansour A Alghamdi Journal: Pharmgenomics Pers Med Date: 2020-11-17