Gary Tse1,2, Mengqi Gong3, Guangping Li3, Sunny Hei Wong1,2, William K K Wu2,4, Wing Tak Wong5, Leonardo Roever6, Alex Pui Wai Lee1, Gregory Y H Lip7,8, Martin C S Wong9,10, Tong Liu3. 1. Department of Medicine and Therapeutics, Faculty of Medicine, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, SAR, People's Republic of China. 2. Li Ka Shing Institute of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, SAR, People's Republic of China. 3. Tianjin Key Laboratory of Ionic-Molecular Function of Cardiovascular disease, Department of Cardiology, Tianjin Institute of Cardiology, Second Hospital of Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, 300211, People's Republic of China. 4. Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, State Key Laboratory of Digestive Disease, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, SAR, People's Republic of China. 5. School of Life Sciences, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, SAR, People's Republic of China. 6. Department of Clinical Research, Federal University of Uberlândia, MG, Brazil. 7. Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. 8. Aalborg Thrombosis Research Unit, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark. 9. JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, SAR, People's Republic of China. 10. State Key Laboratory of Digestive Disease, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, SAR, People's Republic of China.
Abstract
AIMS: Previous trials on the effectiveness of genotype-guided warfarin dosing vs. conventional dosing have been inconclusive. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing genotype-guided to conventional dosing strategies. METHODS: PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched up to 23 October 2017. RESULTS: A total of 76 and 94 entries were retrieved were retrieved from PubMed and the Cochrane Library, respectively. A total of 2626 subjects in the genotype-guided dosing (mean age 63.3 ± 5.8 years; 46% male) and 2604 subjects in the conventional dosing (mean age 64.7 ± 6.1 years; 46% male) groups (mean follow-up duration 64 days) from 18 trials were included. Compared with conventional dosing, genotype-guided dosing significantly shortened the time to first therapeutic international normalized ratio (INR) (mean difference 2.6 days, standard error 0.3 days; P < 0.0001; I2 0%) and time to first stable INR (mean difference 5.9 days, standard error 2.0 days; P < 0.01; I2 94%). Genotype-guided dosing also increased the time in therapeutic range (mean difference 3.1%, standard error 1.2%; P < 0.01; I2 80%) and reduced the risks of both excessive anticoagulation, defined as INR ≥4 [risk ratio (RR) 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78, 0.98; P < 0.05; I2 : 0%), and bleeding (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.69, 0.98; P < 0.05; I2 31%). No difference in thromboembolism (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.56, 1.26; P = 0.40; I2 0%) or mortality (RR 1.16; 95% CI 0.46, 2.91; P = 0.76; I2 0%) was observed between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Genotype-guided warfarin dosing offers better safety with less bleeding compared with conventional dosing strategies. No significant benefit on thromboembolism or mortality was evident.
AIMS: Previous trials on the effectiveness of genotype-guided warfarin dosing vs. conventional dosing have been inconclusive. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing genotype-guided to conventional dosing strategies. METHODS: PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched up to 23 October 2017. RESULTS: A total of 76 and 94 entries were retrieved were retrieved from PubMed and the Cochrane Library, respectively. A total of 2626 subjects in the genotype-guided dosing (mean age 63.3 ± 5.8 years; 46% male) and 2604 subjects in the conventional dosing (mean age 64.7 ± 6.1 years; 46% male) groups (mean follow-up duration 64 days) from 18 trials were included. Compared with conventional dosing, genotype-guided dosing significantly shortened the time to first therapeutic international normalized ratio (INR) (mean difference 2.6 days, standard error 0.3 days; P < 0.0001; I2 0%) and time to first stable INR (mean difference 5.9 days, standard error 2.0 days; P < 0.01; I2 94%). Genotype-guided dosing also increased the time in therapeutic range (mean difference 3.1%, standard error 1.2%; P < 0.01; I2 80%) and reduced the risks of both excessive anticoagulation, defined as INR ≥4 [risk ratio (RR) 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78, 0.98; P < 0.05; I2 : 0%), and bleeding (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.69, 0.98; P < 0.05; I2 31%). No difference in thromboembolism (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.56, 1.26; P = 0.40; I2 0%) or mortality (RR 1.16; 95% CI 0.46, 2.91; P = 0.76; I2 0%) was observed between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Genotype-guided warfarin dosing offers better safety with less bleeding compared with conventional dosing strategies. No significant benefit on thromboembolism or mortality was evident.
Authors: Michael A Hillman; Russell A Wilke; Steven H Yale; Humberto J Vidaillet; Michael D Caldwell; Ingrid Glurich; Richard L Berg; John Schmelzer; James K Burmester Journal: Clin Med Res Date: 2005-08
Authors: Mark P Borgman; Robert C Pendleton; Gwendolyn A McMillin; Kristen K Reynolds; Sara Vazquez; Andrew Freeman; Andrew Wilson; Roland Valdes; Mark W Linder Journal: Thromb Haemost Date: 2012-07-26 Impact factor: 5.249
Authors: Munir Pirmohamed; Girvan Burnside; Niclas Eriksson; Andrea L Jorgensen; Cheng Hock Toh; Toby Nicholson; Patrick Kesteven; Christina Christersson; Bengt Wahlström; Christina Stafberg; J Eunice Zhang; Julian B Leathart; Hugo Kohnke; Anke H Maitland-van der Zee; Paula R Williamson; Ann K Daly; Peter Avery; Farhad Kamali; Mia Wadelius Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-11-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Gary Tse; Mengqi Gong; Guangping Li; Sunny Hei Wong; William K K Wu; Wing Tak Wong; Leonardo Roever; Alex Pui Wai Lee; Gregory Y H Lip; Martin C S Wong; Tong Liu Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2018-06-21 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Hassan Alwafi; Li Wei; Abdallah Y Naser; Pajaree Mongkhon; Gary Tse; Kenneth K C Man; J Simon Bell; Jenni Ilomaki; Gang Fang; Ian C K Wong Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-05-15 Impact factor: 2.692