4.4 Article

Validation of Clinical Testing for Warfarin Sensitivity Comparison of CYP2C9-VKORC1 Genotyping Assays and Warfarin-Dosing Algorithms

Journal

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS
Volume 11, Issue 3, Pages 216-225

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.2353/jmoldx.2009.080123

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. University of North Carolina Department of Pathology
  2. Laboratory Medicine

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Responses to warfarin (Coumadin) anticoagulation therapy are affected by genetic variability in both the CYP2C9 and VKORC1 genes. Validation of pharmacogenetic testing for warfarin responses includes demonstration of analytical validity of testing platforms and of the clinical validity of testing. We compared four platforms for determining the relevant single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in both CYP2C9 and VKORC1 that are associated with warfarin sensitivity (Third Wave Invader Plus, ParagonDx/Cepheid Smart Cycler, Idaho Technology LightCycler, and AutoGenomics Infiniti). Each method was examined for accuracy, cost, and turnaround time. All genotyping methods demonstrated greater than 95% accuracy for identifying the relevant SNPs (CYP2C9 *2 and *3; VKORC1 -1639 or 1173). The ParagonDx and Idaho Technology assays had the shortest turnaround and hands-on times. The Third Wave assay was readily scalable to higher test volumes but had the longest hands-on time. The AutoGenomics assay interrogated the largest number of SNPs but had the longest turnaround time. Four published warfarin-dosing algorithms (Washington University, UCSF, Louisville, and Newcastle) were compared for accuracy for predicting warfarin dose in a retrospective analysis of a local patient population on long-term, stable warfarin therapy. The predicted doses from both the Washington University and UCSF algorithms demonstrated the best correlation with actual warfarin doses. (J Mol Diagn 2009,11:216-225; DOI: 10.2353/jmoldx.2009.080123)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available