ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2026
Fixed dose versus 3-day loading dose warfarin initiation in atrial fibrillation: effects on INR stabilization and time in the therapeutic range.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWarfarin initiation strategies vary, with some clinicians using either a fixed-dose or loading-dose regimen to achieve therapeutic anticoagulation. However, evidence comparing their effectiveness in multiethnic Asian populations without genotype-guided dosing remains limited.
aimTo compare a fixed-dose regimen with a 3-day loading-dose regimen in terms of international normalized ratio (INR) stability and time in the therapeutic range (TTR) over 12 months in a multiethnic atrial fibrillation (AF) cohort. We also aimed to evaluate the relationship between the time to initial INR stabilization and the subsequent anticoagulation quality.
methodThis multicenter, retrospective cohort study included 780 warfarin-naïve patients with AF from two tertiary hospitals (2010 to 2022). Patients were grouped by the initiation strategy: fixed-dose (n = 501) or 3-day loading-dose (n = 279). The primary outcome was the TTR at 3, 6, and 12 months. The association between time to INR stabilization and TTR was assessed using Spearman's correlation, and a General Linear Model (GLM) was used to adjust for comprehensive demographic and clinical confounders.
resultsThe time to initial INR stabilization showed a strong inverse correlation with TTR across all time points (Spearman's r = -0.600 to -0.710; p < 0.001). Although the unadjusted analysis suggested that the INR stabilized faster in the loading-dose group (mean: 111.8 vs. 138.6 days; p < 0.001), this difference became insignificant after accounting for confounding factors (adjusted mean: 94.1 vs 104.1 days; p = 0.248). Similarly, adjusted means of TTRs did not differ significantly between regimens at 3, 6, or 12 months.
conclusionThe choice between fixed-dose and loading-dose warfarin initiation strategies does not independently influence long-term anticoagulation control. Instead, time to initial INR stabilization is the strongest predictor of TTR quality over 12 months. Clinical efforts should prioritize early and intensive INR monitoring in settings without genotype-guided dosing, as both baseline characteristics and the ongoing clinical management likely determine anticoagulation outcomes.
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.