RANDOMIZED COMPARISON OF TWO APPROACHES TO WARFARIN DOSAGE IN CARDIOVASCULAR HOSPITAL SECTION

Aim. To compare two approaches to warfarin dosage formulation: the standard and with the clinical algorithm.

Material and methods. As an approach to warfarin dosage, we have used the method that included clinical properties of the patients. Into the group of the studied approach (intervention group), we randomized 31 person, into the standard approach group (controls) — 29 persons with a variety of indications for vitamin K antagonists treatment. Target diapason of International Normalized Ratio (INR) for all the patients was 2,0 to 3,0.

Results. A stable target INR in both groups was reached during hospitalization just in a small part of the patients: 19,4% in intervention group and 17,2% in controls. The patients from intervention group reached stable INR by 6,8 days in average, that is almost two times faster than controls, who had their target INR by 12,4 day in average (p<0,05). Part of the INR values higher than 4,0 in intervention group was 3,6%, in control group — 18,2% (p<0,05). Thromboembolic events (strokes, pulmonary embolism repeats) has not developed in both groups. There was one bleeding episode in each of the groups.

Conclusion. Opportunities for targeting INR, not dependent on dosing regimen, are quite restricted in inpatient settings. The patients having reached target INR, usage of clinical algorithm of warfarin dosage helped to achieve these values much faster than in standard approach. Prevalence of excessive hypocoagulation while using the algorithm was lesser than in standard group.

 

Key words: ;

warfarin, warfain dose selection, INR, stable INR, clinical algorithm, standard approach

1. Poller L. International Normalized Ratios (INR): the first 20 years. Thromb Haemost, 2004 Jun, 2 (6): 849-60.

2. Kirkwood TB. Calibration of reference thromboplastins and standardization of the prothrombin time ratio. Thromb Haemost, 1983 Jun 28, 49 (3): 238-44.

3. Kimmel SE, French B, Kasner SE, et al. A Pharmacogenetic versus a Clinical Algorithm for Warfarin Dosing. N Engl J Med, 2013 Dec 12, 369 (24): 2283-93.

4. Гланц C. Медико-биологическая статистика. Практика, Москва, 1999.

5. Gage BF, Eby C, Johnson JA, et al. Use of pharmacogenetic and clinical factors to predict the therapeutic dose of warfarin. Clin Pharmacol Ther, 2008; 84 (3): 326-31.

6. Klein TE, Altman RB, et al. Estimation of the warfarin dose with clinical and pharmacogenetic data. N Engl J Med, 2009; 360 (8): 753-64.

7. Takeuchi F, Mcginnis R, Bourgeois S, et al. A genome-wide association study confirms VKORC1, CYP2C9, and CYP4F2 as principal genetic determinants of warfarin dose. PLoS Genet, 2009; 5 (3): e1000433.

8. Wadelius M, Chen LY, Lindh JD, et al. The largest prospective warfarin-treated cohort supports genetic forecasting, Blood, 2009; 113 (4): 784-92.

9. 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 (25): 2804-12.

10. Gong IY, Tirona RG, Schwarz UI, et al. Prospective evaluation of a pharmacogenetics-guided warfarin loading and maintenance dose regimen for initiation of therapy. Blood, 2011; 118 (11): 3163-71.

11. 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 (22): 2563-70.

12. Burmester JK, Berg RL, Yale SH, et al. A randomized controlled trial of genotype-based Coumadin initiation. Genet Med, 2011; 13 (6): 509-18.

13. 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 (16): 1997-2005.

14. Pirmohamed M, Burnside G, Eriksson N, et al. A randomized trial of genotype-guided dosing of warfarin. N Engl J Med, 2013; 369 (24): 2294-303.

15. Kropacheva ES, Borovkov NN, Vavilova TV, et al. The rapid saturation of warfarin as a predictor of development of excessive anticoagulation. Modernization of the algorithm of selection of the dose of warfarin. Atherothrombosis 2015; 1: 75-86. Russian (Кропачева Е. С., Боровков Н. Н., Вавилова Т. В. и соавт. Быстрые темпы насыщения варфарином — предиктор развития чрезмерной гипокоагуляции. Модернизация алгоритма подбора дозы варфарина. Атеротромбоз 2015; 1: 75-86).

16. Connolly SJ, Ezekowitz MD, Yusuf S, et al. Dabigatran versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation. N Engl J Med, 2009; 361 (12): 1139-51.

17. Singer DE, Hellkamp AS, Piccini JP, et al. Impact of global geographic region on time in therapeutic range on warfarin anticoagulant therapy: data from the ROCKET AF clinical trial. J Am Heart Assoc, 2013; 2: e000067.

18. Al-Khatib ML, Thomas L, Wallentin L, et al. Outcomes of apixaban vs. warfarin by type and duration of atrial fibrillation: results from the ARISTOTLE trial. Eur Heart J, 2013; 34: 2464-71.

19. Rose AJ, Hylek EM, Ozonoff A, et al. Patient characteristics associated with oral anticoagulation control: results of the Veterans AffaiRs Study to Improve Anticoagulation (VARIA). Thromb Haemost, 2010, 8: 2182-91.

20. Abumuaileq R R-Y, Abu-Assi E, Raposeiras-Roubin S, et al. Evaluation of SAMe-TT2R2 risk score for predicting the quality of anticoagulation control in a real-world cohort of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation on vitamin-K antagonists. Europace, 2015, 17 (5): 711-17.