Validation and comparison between two warfarin dosing clinical algorithms and warfarin fixed dosing in specialized heart center: cross-sectional study.

IF 2.4 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Pharmacy Practice-Granada Pub Date : 2022-07-01 Epub Date: 2022-09-14 DOI:10.18549/PharmPract.2022.3.2722
Asim Ahmed Elnour, Islam Mohammed Ahmed, Al-Kubaissi Khalid, Mohamed Elmustafa
{"title":"Validation and comparison between two warfarin dosing clinical algorithms and warfarin fixed dosing in specialized heart center: cross-sectional study.","authors":"Asim Ahmed Elnour,&nbsp;Islam Mohammed Ahmed,&nbsp;Al-Kubaissi Khalid,&nbsp;Mohamed Elmustafa","doi":"10.18549/PharmPract.2022.3.2722","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Warfarin is well known as a narrow therapeutic index that has prodigious variability in response which challenges dosing adjustment for the maintenance of therapeutic international normalized ratio. However, an appreciated population not on new oral anticoagulants may still need to be stabilized with warfarin dosing.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The current study's main objective was to validate and compare two models of warfarin clinical algorithm models namely the Gage and the International Warfarin Pharmacogenetics Consortium (IWPC) with warfarin 5 mg fixed standard dosing strategy in a sample of Sudanese subjects.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We have conducted a cross-sectional study recruited from the out-patient clinic at a tertiary specialized heart center. We included subjects with unchanged warfarin dose (stabilized), and with therapeutic international normalized ratio. The predicted doses of warfarin in the two models were calculated by three different methods (accuracy, clinical practicality, and the clinical safety of the clinical algorithms).</p><p><strong>Main outcome measure: </strong>The primary outcomes were the measurements of the clinical (accuracy, practicality, and safety) in each of the two clinical algorithms models compared to warfarin 5 mg fixed standard dose strategy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We have enrolled 71 Sudanese subjects with mean age (51.7 ± 14 years), of which (49, 69.0%) were females. There was no significant difference between the warfarin 5 mg fixed standard dose strategy and the predicted doses of the two clinical algorithm models (MAE 1.44, 1.45, and 1.49 mg/day [P =0.4]) respectively. In the clinical practicality, all of the three models had a high percent of subjects (95.0%, 51.9%, and 66.7%) in the ideal dose range in middle dose group (3-7 mg/ day) for warfarin 5 mg fixed standard dosing strategy, Gage, and IWPC clinical algorithm models respectively. However, a small percent of subjects was exhibited in the warfarin low dose group ≤ 3 mg/day (0.0%, 15.0%, and 10.0%) and warfarin high dose group ≥ 7 mg/day (0.0%, 33.3%, and 33.3%) for warfarin 5 mg fixed standard dosing strategy, Gage, and IWPC clinical algorithms respectively. In terms of clinical safety, the percent of subjects with severely over-prediction were 28.2%, 22.5%, and 22.5% for warfarin 5 mg fixed standard dosing, Gage, and IWPC, respectively. While the percent of severely under-prediction was 12.7%, 7.0%, and 5.6% for the warfarin 5 mg fixed standard dosing, Gage, and IWPC, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Gage and IWPC clinical algorithm models were accurate, more clinically practical, and clinically safe than warfarin 5 mg standard dosing in the study population. The cardiologist can use either models (Gage and IWPC) to stratify subjects for accurate, practical, and clinically safe warfarin dosing..</p>","PeriodicalId":51762,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacy Practice-Granada","volume":"20 3","pages":"2722"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/ca/ea/pharmpract-20-2722.PMC9851814.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacy Practice-Granada","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18549/PharmPract.2022.3.2722","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/9/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Warfarin is well known as a narrow therapeutic index that has prodigious variability in response which challenges dosing adjustment for the maintenance of therapeutic international normalized ratio. However, an appreciated population not on new oral anticoagulants may still need to be stabilized with warfarin dosing.

Objective: The current study's main objective was to validate and compare two models of warfarin clinical algorithm models namely the Gage and the International Warfarin Pharmacogenetics Consortium (IWPC) with warfarin 5 mg fixed standard dosing strategy in a sample of Sudanese subjects.

Method: We have conducted a cross-sectional study recruited from the out-patient clinic at a tertiary specialized heart center. We included subjects with unchanged warfarin dose (stabilized), and with therapeutic international normalized ratio. The predicted doses of warfarin in the two models were calculated by three different methods (accuracy, clinical practicality, and the clinical safety of the clinical algorithms).

Main outcome measure: The primary outcomes were the measurements of the clinical (accuracy, practicality, and safety) in each of the two clinical algorithms models compared to warfarin 5 mg fixed standard dose strategy.

Results: We have enrolled 71 Sudanese subjects with mean age (51.7 ± 14 years), of which (49, 69.0%) were females. There was no significant difference between the warfarin 5 mg fixed standard dose strategy and the predicted doses of the two clinical algorithm models (MAE 1.44, 1.45, and 1.49 mg/day [P =0.4]) respectively. In the clinical practicality, all of the three models had a high percent of subjects (95.0%, 51.9%, and 66.7%) in the ideal dose range in middle dose group (3-7 mg/ day) for warfarin 5 mg fixed standard dosing strategy, Gage, and IWPC clinical algorithm models respectively. However, a small percent of subjects was exhibited in the warfarin low dose group ≤ 3 mg/day (0.0%, 15.0%, and 10.0%) and warfarin high dose group ≥ 7 mg/day (0.0%, 33.3%, and 33.3%) for warfarin 5 mg fixed standard dosing strategy, Gage, and IWPC clinical algorithms respectively. In terms of clinical safety, the percent of subjects with severely over-prediction were 28.2%, 22.5%, and 22.5% for warfarin 5 mg fixed standard dosing, Gage, and IWPC, respectively. While the percent of severely under-prediction was 12.7%, 7.0%, and 5.6% for the warfarin 5 mg fixed standard dosing, Gage, and IWPC, respectively.

Conclusion: The Gage and IWPC clinical algorithm models were accurate, more clinically practical, and clinically safe than warfarin 5 mg standard dosing in the study population. The cardiologist can use either models (Gage and IWPC) to stratify subjects for accurate, practical, and clinically safe warfarin dosing..

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

两种华法林给药临床算法和华法林固定给药在专业心脏中心的验证和比较:横断面研究。
背景:众所周知,华法林是一种狭窄的治疗指标,其反应具有巨大的可变性,这对维持治疗性国际标准化比率的剂量调整提出了挑战。然而,未使用新的口服抗凝血剂的受欢迎人群可能仍需要通过服用华法林来稳定。目的:本研究的主要目的是在苏丹受试者样本中验证和比较华法林临床算法模型的两个模型,即Gage和国际华法林药物遗传学联合会(IWPC)与华法林5 mg固定标准给药策略。方法:我们进行了一项横断面研究,招募自三级专业心脏中心的门诊。我们纳入了华法林剂量不变(稳定)和治疗国际标准化比率的受试者。通过三种不同的方法(准确性、临床实用性和临床算法的临床安全性)计算两个模型中华法林的预测剂量。主要结果衡量标准:与华法林5 mg固定标准剂量策略相比,主要结果是两个临床算法模型中每一个的临床(准确性、实用性和安全性)测量结果。结果:我们招募了71名苏丹受试者,平均年龄(51.7±14岁),其中(49,69.0%)为女性。华法林5 mg固定标准剂量策略与两种临床算法模型的预测剂量(MAE分别为1.44、1.45和1.49 mg/天[P=0.4])之间没有显著差异。在临床实用性方面,所有三种模型在华法林5mg固定标准给药策略、Gage和IWPC临床算法模型的中剂量组(3-7mg/天)的理想剂量范围内的受试者比例均较高(95.0%、51.9%和66.7%)。然而,对于华法林5mg固定标准给药策略、Gage和IWPC临床算法,华法林低剂量组≤3mg/天(0.0%、15.0%和10.0%)和华法林高剂量组≥7mg/天(0.0%、33.3%和33.3%)的受试者比例较小。就临床安全性而言,华法林5 mg固定标准剂量、Gage和IWPC的严重过度预测受试者比例分别为28.2%、22.5%和22.5%。而华法林5 mg固定标准剂量、Gage和IWPC的严重低于预测的百分比分别为12.7%、7.0%和5.6%。结论:在研究人群中,Gage和IWPC临床算法模型比华法林5mg标准剂量准确、更具临床实用性和临床安全性。心脏病专家可以使用任一模型(Gage和IWPC)对受试者进行分层,以获得准确、实用和临床安全的华法林剂量。。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pharmacy Practice-Granada
Pharmacy Practice-Granada PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
4.00%
发文量
113
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: Pharmacy Practice is a free full-text peer-reviewed journal with a scope on pharmacy practice. Pharmacy Practice is published quarterly. Pharmacy Practice does not charge and will never charge any publication fee or article processing charge (APC) to the authors. The current and future absence of any article processing charges (APCs) is signed in the MoU with the Center for Pharmacy Practice Innovation (CPPI) at Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) School of Pharmacy. Pharmacy Practice is the consequence of the efforts of a number of colleagues from different Universities who belief in collaborative publishing: no one pays, no one receives. Although focusing on the practice of pharmacy, Pharmacy Practice covers a wide range of pharmacy activities, among them and not being comprehensive, clinical pharmacy, pharmaceutical care, social pharmacy, pharmacy education, process and outcome research, health promotion and education, health informatics, pharmacoepidemiology, etc.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信