ArticlePharmacogenetics and genomics2016
A systematic analysis and comparison of warfarin initiation strategies.
Article in Pharmacogenetics and genomics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Machine Learning for Prediction of Stable Warfarin Dose in US Latinos and Latin Americans.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
- Genetic polymorphisms and dosing of vitamin K antagonist in Indian patients after heart valve surgery.Indian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2019Article
- Pharmacogenomics of CYP2C9: Functional and Clinical Considerations.Journal of personalized medicine · 2017Review
- Warfarin Pharmacogenomics in Diverse Populations.Pharmacotherapy · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveRandomized trials have reported inconsistent evidence on the effectiveness of algorithms that use genotypes to initiate warfarin therapy. The Clarification of Optimal Anticoagulation through Genetics (COAG) trial initiated therapy on the basis of predicted maintenance doses, with a pharmacogenetic-guided algorithm in one study group and a clinically guided algorithm in the other. The European Pharmacogenetics of Anticoagulant Therapy (EU-PACT) consortium initiated therapy on the basis of loading doses, with an algorithm-based prediction in one study group and a fixed-dose regimen in the other. To understand the differences between these trials, we compared the initial doses between alternative dosing algorithms (the pharmacogenetic-guided and clinically guided algorithms developed by Gage and colleagues and those developed by the International Warfarin Pharmacogenetics Consortium) and between the COAG and EU-PACT dose-initiation strategies.
methodsThis was a secondary analysis of the COAG trial - a double-blind, randomized-controlled trial (2009-2013) - conducted at 18 clinical centers in the USA, which included 1010 adults initiating warfarin therapy, of whom 719 achieved maintenance dose.
resultsAmong COAG participants, the distribution of initial doses differed between algorithms, but showed similar prediction accuracy for maintenance dose. However, had the COAG trial implemented the EU-PACT strategy, the 3-day initial dose would have been 4.8 mg greater among participants randomized to pharmacogenetic-guided dosing, but only 2.5 mg greater among participants randomized to clinically guided dosing (P<0.001).
conclusionCompared with the COAG trial, the EU-PACT trial used systematically larger loading doses in the pharmacogenetic-guided group and might have inadequately adjusted for clinical variability in warfarin dose requirements in the fixed-dose group.
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.