ArticlePharmacogenetics and genomics2024
Comparative performance of pharmacogenetics-based warfarin dosing algorithms in Chinese population: use of a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model to explore dosing regimen through clinical trial simulation.
Article in Pharmacogenetics and genomics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Leveraging Machine Learning to Predict Warfarin Sensitivity in the Puerto Rican Population: A Pharmacogenomic Approach.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWarfarin has a narrow therapeutic window and large variability in dosing that are affected by clinical and genetic factors. To help guide the dosing of warfarin, the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium has recommended the use of pharmacogenetic algorithms, such as the ones developed by the International Warfarin Pharmacogenetics Consortium (IWPC) and by Gage et al. when genotype information is available.
methodsIn this study, simulations were performed in Chinese cohorts to explore how dosing differences between Western (by IWPC and Gage et al.) and Chinese algorithms (by Miao et al.) would mean in terms of anticoagulation effect in clinical trials. We first tried to replicate a published clinical trial comparing genotype-guided dosing to routine clinical dosing in Chinese patients. We then made simulations where Chinese cohorts received daily doses recommended by Gage, IWPC, and Miao algorithms.
resultsWe found that in simulation conditions where dosing specifications were strictly followed, genotype-guided dosing by IWPC and Lenzini formulae was more likely to overshoot the upper limit of the therapeutic window by day 15, and thus may have a lower % time in therapeutic range (%TTR) than that of clinical dosing group. Also, in comparing Gage, IWPC, and Miao algorithms, we found that the Miao dosing cohort has the highest %TTR and the lowest risk of over-anticoagulation by day 28.
conclusionIn summary, our results confirmed that algorithms developed based on data from local patients may be more suitable for achieving therapeutic international normalized ratio window in Chinese population.
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.