A review of a priori regression models for warfarin maintenance dose prediction

10Citations
Citations of this article
23Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

A number of a priori warfarin dosing algorithms, derived using linear regression methods, have been proposed. Although these dosing algorithms may have been validated using patients derived from the same centre, rarely have they been validated using a patient cohort recruited from another centre. In order to undertake external validation, two cohorts were utilised. One cohort formed by patients from a prospective trial and the second formed by patients in the control arm of the EUPACT trial. Of these, 641 patients were identified as having attained stable dosing and formed the dataset used for validation. Predicted maintenance doses from six criterion fulfilling regression models were then compared to individual patient stable warfarin dose. Predictive ability was assessed with reference to several statistics including the R-square and mean absolute error. The six regression models explained different amounts of variability in the stable maintenance warfarin dose requirements of the patients in the two validation cohorts; adjusted R-squared values ranged from 24.2% to 68.6%. An overview of the summary statistics demonstrated that no one dosing algorithm could be considered optimal. The larger validation cohort from the prospective trial produced more consistent statistics across the six dosing algorithms. The study found that all the regression models performed worse in the validation cohort when compared to the derivation cohort. Further, there was little difference between regression models that contained pharmacogenetic coefficients and algorithms containing just non-pharmacogenetic coefficients. The inconsistency of results between the validation cohorts suggests that unaccounted population specific factors cause variability in dosing algorithm performance. Better methods for dosing that take into account inter- and intraindividual variability, at the initiation and maintenance phases of warfarin treatment, are needed.

Figures

  • Table 2. Demographic, Clinical and Pharmacogenetic Information of Patient in the Validation Cohort.
  • Fig. 1. Graphs of predicted dose and actual warfarin dose in the Liverpool prospective study validation cohort.
  • Fig. 2. Graphs of predicted dose and actual warfarin dose in the EU-PACT trial control arm validation cohort.
  • Table 3. Summary Statistics about the Performance of the Six Dosing Algorithms[4–6, 8, 15, 36].
  • Fig. 3. INR-Time profiles of three patients receiving standard care.

References Powered by Scopus

Adverse drug reactions as cause of admission to hospital: Prospective analysis of 18 820 patients

2618Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Pharmacology and management of the vitamin K antagonists: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition)

1950Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Estimation of the warfarin dose with clinical and pharmacogenetic data

0
1432Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Implementation of genotype-guided dosing of warfarin with point-of-care genetic testing in three UK clinics: A matched cohort study

43Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Genotype-guided warfarin therapy: Current status

38Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Warfarin Dosing Algorithms Underpredict Dose Requirements in Patients Requiring ≥7 mg Daily: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

19Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Francis, B., Lane, S., Pirmohamed, M., & Jorgensen, A. (2014, December 12). A review of a priori regression models for warfarin maintenance dose prediction. PLoS ONE. Public Library of Science. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114896

Readers over time

‘15‘16‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘2502468

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 11

61%

Researcher 5

28%

Professor / Associate Prof. 1

6%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

6%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 5

45%

Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceut... 2

18%

Computer Science 2

18%

Nursing and Health Professions 2

18%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0