Article

Comparative performance of gene-based warfarin dosing algorithms in a multiethnic population

Zena and Michael Wiener Cardiovascular Institute, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis (Impact Factor: 5.55). 05/2010; 8(5):1018-26. DOI: 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2010.03792.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Gene-based warfarin dosing algorithms have largely been developed in homogeneous populations, and their generalizability has not been established.
We sought to assess the performance of published algorithms in a racially diverse and multiethnic sample, and determine if additional clinical variables or genetic variants associated with dose could enhance algorithm performance.
In 145 compliant patients on warfarin with a goal international normalized ratio (INR) of 2-3, stable, therapeutic doses were compared with predicted doses using 12 reported algorithms that incorporated CYP2C9 and VKORC1 variants. Additional covariates tested with each model included race, concurrent medications, medications known to interact with warfarin and previously described CYP4F2, CALU and GGCX variants.
The mean patient age was 67 +/- 14 years; 90 (62%) were male. Eighty-two (57%) were Caucasian, 28 (19%) African-American, 20 (14%) Hispanic and 15 (10%) Asian. The median warfarin dose was 35 mg per week (interquartile range 23-53 mg per week). Gene-based dosing algorithms explained 37-55% of the variation in warfarin dose requirements. Neither the addition of race, number of concurrent medications nor the number of concurrent medications interacting with warfarin enhanced algorithm performance. Similarly, consideration of CYP4F2, CALU or GGCX variant genotypes did not improve algorithms.
Existing gene-based dosing algorithms explained between approximately one-third and one-half of the variability in warfarin dose requirements in this racially and ethnically diverse cohort. Additional clinical and recently described genetic variants associated with warfarin dose did not enhance prediction in our patient population.

Full-text

Available from: Malgorzata Jaremko, Mar 23, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
99 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction VKORC1 and cytochrome CYP2C9 genetic variants contribute largely to inter-individual variations in vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) dose requirements. Cytochrome P450 4 F2 isoform (CYP4F2), gamma-glutamyl carboxylase (GGCX) and apolipoprotein E (APOE) polymorphisms have been suggested to be of minor significance. Materials and Methods We sought to assess the impact of those polymorphisms on dose requirements in Central-Eastern European cohort of 479 patients receiving acenocoumarol (n = 260) or warfarin (n = 219). Results There were no differences between the acenocoumarol and warfarin groups with regard to the gender, age, body mass index and international normalized ratio. The VKORC1 c.-1639A allele carriers required a lower dose of acenocoumarol and warfarin than the non-carriers (28.0 [21.0–35.0] vs. 42.0 [28.0–56.0] mg/week, p < 0.0001; 35.0 [28.0–52.0] vs. 52.0 [35.0–70.0] mg/week, p = 0.0001, respectively). Carriers of *2 and/or *3 variant alleles for CYP2C9 also required a lower dose of warfarin as compared with *1*1 carriers (35.0 [31.5–52.5] vs. 43.8 [35.0–60.2] mg/week, p = 0.02; 35.0 [23.5–35.0] vs. 43.8 [35.0-60.2] mg/week, p < 0.0001, respectively). Similarly, possession of G allele of GGCX c.2084 + 45 polymorphism was associated with lower warfarin dose (35.0 [26.3–39.2] vs. 45.5 [35.0–65.1] mg/week, p = 0.03). No effect of CYP2C9*2,-*3 and GGCX c.2084 + 45G > C polymorphisms on acenocoumarol dosage was observed. Interestingly, carriers of CYP4F2 c.1297A variant required a higher dose of acenocoumarol and warfarin than non-carriers (43.8 [35.0–60.2] vs. 35.0 [35.0–52.5] mg/week, p = 0.01; 35.0 [28.0–52.5] vs. 28.0 [28.0–42.0] mg/week, p = 0.05). Conclusions We have shown for the first time, that besides VKORC1 and CYP2C9 genetic variants, the CYP4F2 c.1297A and GGCX c.2084 + 45G have a moderate effect on VKAs dose requirements in Slavic population from Central-Eastern Europe.
    Thrombosis Research 09/2014; 134(3). DOI:10.1016/j.thromres.2014.06.022 · 2.43 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Spanning over 2000 years, the Jewish population has a long history of migration, population bottlenecks, expansions, and geographical isolation, which has resulted in a unique genetic architecture among the Jewish people. As such, many Mendelian disease genes and founder mutations for autosomal recessive diseases have been discovered in several Jewish groups, which have prompted recent genomic studies in the Jewish population on common disease susceptibility and other complex traits. Although few studies on the genetic determinants of drug response variability have been reported in the Jewish population, a number of unique pharmacogenetic variants have been discovered that are more common in Jewish populations than in other major racial groups. Notable examples identified in the Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) population include the vitamin K epoxide reductase complex subunit 1 (VKORC1) c.106G>T (p.D36Y) variant associated with high warfarin dosing requirements and the recently reported cytochrome P450 2C19 (CYP2C19) allele, CYP2C19*4B, that harbors both loss-of-function [*4 (c.1A>G)] and increased-function [*17 (c.-806C>T)] variants on the same haplotype. These data are encouraging in that like other ethnicities and subpopulations, the Jewish population likely harbors numerous pharmacogenetic variants that are uncommon or absent in other larger racial groups and ethnicities. In addition to unique variants, common multi-ethnic variants in key drug metabolism genes (e.g., ABCB1, CYP2C8, CYP2C9, CYP2C19, CYP2D6, NAT2) have also been detected in the AJ and other Jewish groups. This review aims to summarize the currently available pharmacogenetics literature and discuss future directions for related research with this unique population.
    05/2014; DOI:10.1515/dmdi-2013-0069
  • Pharmacogenetics and Genomics 11/2014; DOI:10.1097/FPC.0000000000000100 · 3.45 Impact Factor