SynthesisJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2015
Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials reveals an improved clinical outcome of using genotype plus clinical algorithm for warfarin dosing.
Synthesis in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Warfarin dosing algorithms: A systematic review.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2021Pooled it
- Genotype-guided warfarin dosing vs. conventional dosing strategies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2018Pooled it
- Limited clinical utility of genotype-guided warfarin initiation dosing algorithms versus standard therapy: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials.The pharmacogenomics journal · 2015Pooled it
- Review
- Impact of incorporating ABCB1 and CYP4F2 polymorphisms in a pharmacogenetics-guided warfarin dosing algorithm for the Brazilian population.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2018Article
- Contrasting Medical and Legal Standards of Evidence: A Precision Medicine Case Study.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2016Article
- Warfarin pharmacogenetics.Trends in cardiovascular medicine · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous studies have raised interest in using the genotyping of CYP2C9 and VKORC1 to guide warfarin dosing. However, there is lack of solid evidence to prove that genotype plus clinical algorithm provides improved clinical outcomes than the single clinical algorithm. The results of recent reported clinical trials are paradoxical and needs to be systematically evaluated. In this study, we aim to assess whether genotype plus clinical algorithm of warfarin is superior to the single clinical algorithm through a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). All relevant studies from PubMed and reference lists from Jan 1, 1995 to Jan 13, 2014 were extracted and screened. Eligible studies included randomized trials that compared clinical plus pharmacogenetic algorithms group to single clinical algorithm group using adult (≥ 18 years) patients with disease conditions that require warfarin use. We further used fix-effect models to calculate the mean difference or the risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs to analyze the extracted data. The statistical heterogeneity was calculated using I(2). The percentage of time within the therapeutic INR range was considered to be the primary clinical outcome. The initial search strategy identified 50 citations and 7 trials were eligible. These seven trials included 1,910 participants, including 960 patients who received genotype plus clinical algorithm of warfarin dosing and 950 patients who received clinical algorithm only. We discovered that the percentage of time within the therapeutic INR range of the genotype-guided group was improved compared with the standard group in the RCTs when the initial standard dose was fixed (95% CI 0.09-0.40; I(2) = 47.8%). However, for the studies using non-fixed initial doses, the genotype-guided group failed to exhibit statistically significant outcome compared to the standard group. No significant difference was observed in the incidences of adverse events (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84-1.04; I(2) = 0%, p = 0.647) and death rates (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.46-4.05; I(2) = 10.4%, p = 0.328) between the two groups. Allocation to genotype plus clinical algorithm may be associated with a significant improvement of the percentage of time within the therapeutic INR range for patients adopting fixed dose of warfarin. The incidence of total adverse events and death rates did not differ between these two groups. Further experiments need to be conducted to confirm these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24962733What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.