↓ Skip to main content

Genotype-guided versus traditional clinical dosing of warfarin in patients of Asian ancestry: a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
38 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Genotype-guided versus traditional clinical dosing of warfarin in patients of Asian ancestry: a randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Medicine, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12916-018-1093-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicholas L. Syn, Andrea Li-Ann Wong, Soo-Chin Lee, Hock-Luen Teoh, James Wei Luen Yip, Raymond CS Seet, Wee Tiong Yeo, William Kristanto, Ping-Chong Bee, LM Poon, Patrick Marban, Tuck Seng Wu, Michael D. Winther, Liam R. Brunham, Richie Soong, Bee-Choo Tai, Boon-Cher Goh

Abstract

Genotype-guided warfarin dosing has been shown in some randomized trials to improve anticoagulation outcomes in individuals of European ancestry, yet its utility in Asian patients remains unresolved. An open-label, non-inferiority, 1:1 randomized trial was conducted at three academic hospitals in South East Asia, involving 322 ethnically diverse patients newly indicated for warfarin (NCT00700895). Clinical follow-up was 90 days. The primary efficacy measure was the number of dose titrations within the first 2 weeks of therapy, with a mean non-inferiority margin of 0.5 over the first 14 days of therapy. Among 322 randomized patients, 269 were evaluable for the primary endpoint. Compared with traditional dosing, the genotype-guided group required fewer dose titrations during the first 2 weeks (1.77 vs. 2.93, difference -1.16, 90% CI -1.48 to -0.84, P < 0.001 for both non-inferiority and superiority). The percentage of time within the therapeutic range over 3 months and median time to stable international normalized ratio (INR) did not differ between the genotype-guided and traditional dosing groups. The frequency of dose titrations (incidence rate ratio 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.86, P = 0.001), but not frequency of INR measurements, was lower at 1, 2, and 3 months in the genotype-guided group. The proportions of patients who experienced minor or major bleeding, recurrent venous thromboembolism, or out-of-range INR did not differ between both arms. For predicting maintenance doses, the pharmacogenetic algorithm achieved an R2 = 42.4% (P < 0.001) and mean percentage error of -7.4%. Among Asian adults commencing warfarin therapy, a pharmacogenetic algorithm meets criteria for both non-inferiority and superiority in reducing dose titrations compared with a traditional dosing approach, and performs well in prediction of actual maintenance doses. These findings imply that clinicians may consider applying a pharmacogenetic algorithm to personalize initial warfarin dosages in Asian patients. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00700895 . Registered on June 19, 2008.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 13%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Unspecified 2 3%
Lecturer 2 3%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 33 48%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 4%
Unspecified 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 33 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 December 2019.
All research outputs
#1,292,544
of 25,753,031 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#896
of 4,085 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,633
of 340,437 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#22
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,753,031 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,085 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 340,437 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.