Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis

, Volume 39, Issue 2, pp 228–234

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials reveals an improved clinical outcome of using genotype plus clinical algorithm for warfarin dosing

  • Zhenqi Liao
  • Shaoguang Feng
  • Peng Ling
  • Guoqing Zhang


Previous studies have raised interest in using the genotyping of CYP2C9 and VKORC1 to guide warfarin dosing. However, there is lack of solid evidence to prove that genotype plus clinical algorithm provides improved clinical outcomes than the single clinical algorithm. The results of recent reported clinical trials are paradoxical and needs to be systematically evaluated. In this study, we aim to assess whether genotype plus clinical algorithm of warfarin is superior to the single clinical algorithm through a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). All relevant studies from PubMed and reference lists from Jan 1, 1995 to Jan 13, 2014 were extracted and screened. Eligible studies included randomized trials that compared clinical plus pharmacogenetic algorithms group to single clinical algorithm group using adult (≥18 years) patients with disease conditions that require warfarin use. We further used fix-effect models to calculate the mean difference or the risk ratios (RRs) and 95 % CIs to analyze the extracted data. The statistical heterogeneity was calculated using I2. The percentage of time within the therapeutic INR range was considered to be the primary clinical outcome. The initial search strategy identified 50 citations and 7 trials were eligible. These seven trials included 1,910 participants, including 960 patients who received genotype plus clinical algorithm of warfarin dosing and 950 patients who received clinical algorithm only. We discovered that the percentage of time within the therapeutic INR range of the genotype-guided group was improved compared with the standard group in the RCTs when the initial standard dose was fixed (95 % CI 0.09–0.40; I2 = 47.8 %). However, for the studies using non-fixed initial doses, the genotype-guided group failed to exhibit statistically significant outcome compared to the standard group. No significant difference was observed in the incidences of adverse events (RR 0.94, 95 % CI 0.84–1.04; I2 = 0 %, p = 0.647) and death rates (RR 1.36, 95 % CI 0.46–4.05; I2 = 10.4 %, p = 0.328) between the two groups. Allocation to genotype plus clinical algorithm may be associated with a significant improvement of the percentage of time within the therapeutic INR range for patients adopting fixed dose of warfarin. The incidence of total adverse events and death rates did not differ between these two groups. Further experiments need to be conducted to confirm these findings.


Genotype algorithm Warfarin dosing Meta-analysis 

Supplementary material

11239_2014_1099_MOESM1_ESM.tif (1.3 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (TIFF 394 kb)
11239_2014_1099_MOESM2_ESM.tif (1.6 mb)
Supplementary material 2 (TIFF 61 kb)
11239_2014_1099_MOESM3_ESM.tif (1.6 mb)
Supplementary material 3 (TIFF 90 kb)


  1. 1.
    Johnson J, Gong L, Whirl-Carrillo M, Gage B, Scott S et al (2011) Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium Guidelines for CYP2C9 and VKORC1 genotypes and warfarin dosing. Clin Pharmacol Ther 90:625–629PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson JL, Horne BD, Stevens SM, Woller SC, Samuelson KM et al (2012) A randomized and clinical effectiveness trial comparing two pharmacogenetic algorithms and standard care for individualizing warfarin dosing (CoumaGen-II) clinical perspective. Circulation 125:1997–2005PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wadelius M, Pirmohamed M (2006) Pharmacogenetics of warfarin: current status and future challenges. Pharmacogenomics J 7:99–111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hylek EM. Complications of oral anticoagulant therapy: bleeding and nonbleeding, rates and risk factors; 2003. Thieme Medical Publishers, pp. 271–278.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hylek EM, Skates SJ, Sheehan MA, Singer DE (1996) An analysis of the lowest effective intensity of prophylactic anticoagulation for patients with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 335:540–546PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jorgensen AL, FitzGerald RJ, Oyee J, Pirmohamed M, Williamson PR (2012) Influence of CYP2C9 and VKORC1 on patient response to warfarin: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 7:e44064PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yang J, Chen Y, Li X, Wei X, Chen X et al (2013) Influence of CYP2C9 and VKORC1 genotypes on the risk of hemorrhagic complications in warfarin-treated patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol 168:4234–4243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327:557PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315:629–634PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hillman MA, Wilke RA, Yale SH, Vidaillet HJ, Caldwell MD et al (2005) A prospective, randomized pilot trial of model-based warfarin dose initiation using CYP2C9 genotype and clinical data. Clin Med Res 3:137–145PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Anderson JL, Horne BD, Stevens SM, Grove AS, Barton S et al (2007) Randomized trial of genotype-guided versus standard warfarin dosing in patients initiating oral anticoagulation. Circulation 116:2563–2570PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Caraco Y, Blotnick S, Muszkat M (2008) CYP2C9 genotype-guided warfarin prescribing enhances the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation: a prospective randomized controlled study. Clin Pharmacol Ther 83:460–470PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wang M, Lang X, Cui S, Fei K, Zou L et al (2012) Clinical application of pharmacogenetic-based warfarin-dosing algorithm in patients of Han nationality after rheumatic valve replacement: a randomized and controlled trial. Int J Med Sci 9:472–479PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jonas DE, Evans JP, McLeod HL, Brode S, Lange LA et al (2013) Impact of genotype-guided dosing on anticoagulation visits for adults starting warfarin: a randomized controlled trial. Pharmacogenomics 14:1593–1603PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kimmel SE, French B, Kasner SE, Johnson JA, Anderson JL et al (2013) A pharmacogenetic versus a clinical algorithm for warfarin dosing. N Engl J Med 369:2283–2293PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pirmohamed M, Burnside G, Eriksson N, Jorgensen AL, Toh CH et al (2013) A randomized trial of genotype-guided dosing of warfarin. N Engl J Med 369:2294–2303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hohnloser SH, Oldgren J, Yang S, Wallentin L, Ezekowitz M et al (2012) Myocardial ischemic events in patients with atrial fibrillation treated with dabigatran or warfarin in the RE-LY (Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy) trial. Circulation 125:669–676PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Epstein RS, Moyer TP, Aubert RE, Kane DJ, Xia F et al (2010) Warfarin genotyping reduces hospitalization rates results from the MM-WES (Medco-Mayo Warfarin Effectiveness study). J Am Coll Cardiol 55:2804–2812PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gage BF, Milligan PE (2005) Pharmacology and pharmacogenetics of warfarin and other coumarins when used with supplements. Thromb Res 117:55–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Takahashi H, Wilkinson GR, Nutescu EA, Morita T, Ritchie MD et al (2006) Different contributions of polymorphisms in VKORC1 and CYP2C9 to intra-and inter-population differences in maintenance dose of warfarin in Japanese, Caucasians and African-Americans. Pharmacogenet Genomics 16:101–110PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kimmel SE, Chen Z, Price M, Parker CS, Metlay JP et al (2007) The influence of patient adherence on anticoagulation control with warfarin: results from the International Normalized Ratio Adherence and Genetics (IN-RANGE) Study. Arch Intern Med 167:229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Verhoef TI, Ragia G, de Boer A, Barallon R, Kolovou G et al (2013) A randomized trial of genotype-guided dosing of acenocoumarol and phenprocoumon. N Engl J Med 369:2304–2312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 151:264–269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gage B, Eby C, Johnson J, Deych E, Rieder M et al (2008) Use of pharmacogenetic and clinical factors to predict the therapeutic dose of warfarin. Clin Pharmacol Ther 84:326–331PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ageno W, Johnson J, Nowacki B, Turpie AG (2000) A computer generated induction system for hospitalized patients starting on oral anticoagulant therapy. Thromb Haemost 83:849–852PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    D’Andrea G, D’Ambrosio RL, Di Perna P, Chetta M, Santacroce R et al (2005) A polymorphism in the VKORC1 gene is associated with an interindividual variability in the dose-anticoagulant effect of warfarin. Blood 105:645–649PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Klein T, Altman R, Eriksson N, Gage B, Kimmel S et al (2009) Estimation of the warfarin dose with clinical and pharmacogenetic data. N Engl J Med 360:753–764PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hillman MA, Wilke RA, Caldwell MD, Berg RL, Glurich I et al (2004) Relative impact of covariates in prescribing warfarin according to CYP2C9 genotype. Pharmacogenet Genomics 14:539–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Huang S-W, Chen H-S, Wang X-Q, Huang L, Xu D-L et al (2009) Validation of VKORC1 and CYP2C9 genotypes on interindividual warfarin maintenance dose: a prospective study in Chinese patients. Pharmacogenet Genomics 19:226–234PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zhenqi Liao
    • 1
  • Shaoguang Feng
    • 2
  • Peng Ling
    • 1
  • Guoqing Zhang
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Traditional Chinese MedicineThe Second Affiliated Hospital of Suzhou UniversitySuzhouChina
  2. 2.Department of Pediatric SurgeryThe Second Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical CollegeWenzhouChina

Personalised recommendations