Observational studyThrombosis and haemostasis2016
An expanded pharmacogenomics warfarin dosing table with utility in generalised dosing guidance.
Observational study in Thrombosis and haemostasis, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Warfarin dosing algorithms: A systematic review.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2021Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence and machine learning for precision warfarin dosing: a comprehensive narrative review.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Review
- A Systematic Review of Polygenic Models for Predicting Drug Outcomes.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
- Development of a system to support warfarin dose decisions using deep neural networks.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Common Treatment, Common Variant: Evolutionary Prediction of Functional Pharmacogenomic Variants.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Article
- Verification of pharmacogenomics-based algorithms to predict warfarin maintenance dose using registered data of Japanese patients.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2019Article
- Pharmacogenomics of CYP2C9: Functional and Clinical Considerations.Journal of personalized medicine · 2017Review
- Precision Military Medicine: Conducting a multi-site clinical utility study of genomic and lifestyle risk factors in the United States Air Force.NPJ genomic medicine · 2017Article
- Prevalence of clinically actionable genotypes and medication exposure of older adults in the community.Pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine · 2017Article
- Challenges in Translating GWAS Results to Clinical Care.International journal of molecular sciences · 2016Article
- Pharmacogenetics and Practice: Tailoring Prescribing for Safety and Effectiveness.The journal for nurse practitioners : JNPArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Pharmacogenomics (PGx) guided warfarin dosing, using a comprehensive dosing algorithm, is expected to improve dose optimisation and lower the risk of adverse drug reactions. As a complementary tool, a simple genotype-dosing table, such as in the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Coumadin drug label, may be utilised for general risk assessment of likely over- or under-anticoagulation on a standard dose of warfarin. This tool may be used as part of the clinical decision support for the interpretation of genetic data, serving as a first step in the anticoagulation therapy decision making process. Here we used a publicly available warfarin dosing calculator (www.warfarindosing.org) to create an expanded gene-based warfarin dosing table, the CPMC-WD table that includes nine genetic variants in CYP2C9, VKORC1, and CYP4F2. Using two datasets, a European American cohort (EUA, n=73) and the Quebec Warfarin Cohort (QWC, n=769), we show that the CPMC-WD table more accurately predicts therapeutic dose than the FDA table (51 % vs 33 %, respectively, in the EUA, McNemar's two-sided p=0.02; 52 % vs 37 % in the QWC, p<1×10(-6)). It also outperforms both the standard of care 5 mg/day dosing (51 % vs 34 % in the EUA, p=0.04; 52 % vs 31 % in the QWC, p<1×10(-6)) as well as a clinical-only algorithm (51 % vs 38 % in the EUA, trend p=0.11; 52 % vs 45 % in the QWC, p=0.003). This table offers a valuable update to the PGx dosing guideline in the drug label.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.