4.4 Article

Hyper-responsiveness to warfarin in a young patient with the VKORC1-1639GA/CYP2C9*1*46 genotype: a case report

期刊

THROMBOSIS JOURNAL
卷 20, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12959-022-00425-8

关键词

Hyper-responsiveness; Warfarin; INR; VKORC1; Polymorphism

资金

  1. University of Damascus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article reports a rare case of hyper-responsive phenotype to warfarin in a patient with heterozygous CYP2C9 * 1 * 46 polymorphism.
Background Warfarin is the most widely used oral anticoagulant; nevertheless, dosing of warfarin is problematic for clinicians worldwide. Inter-individual variability in response to warfarin is attributed to genetic as well as non-genetic factors. Pharmacogenomics studies have identified variants in CYP2C9 and VKORC1 genes as significant predictors of warfarin dose, however, phenotypes of rare variants are not well characterized. Case presentation We report a case of hyper-responsiveness to warfarin in a 22-year-old outpatient with Crohn's disease who presented with a swollen, red, and painful left calf. Deep venous thrombosis (DVT) in the left lower extremity was confirmed via ultrasonography, and hence, anticoagulation therapy of heparin and concomitant warfarin was initiated. Warfarin dose of 7.5 mg/day was estimated by the physician based on clinical factors. Higher than the expected international normalized ratio (INR) value of 4.5 necessitated the reduction of the warfarin dose to 5 and eventually to 2.5 mg/day to reach a therapeutic INR value of 2.6. Pharmacogenetic profiling of the VKORC1 -1639G > A and CYP2C9 *2, *3, *4, *5, *8, *14, *20, *24, *26, *33, *40, *41, *42, *43, *45, *46, *55, *62, *63, *66, *68, *72, *73 and *78 revealed a VKORC1-1639GA/CYP2C9*1*46 genotype. The lower catalytic activity of the CYP2C9*46 (A149T) variant was previously reported in in vitro settings. Conclusions This is the first report on a case of warfarin hyper-responsive phenotype of a patient with the heterozygous CYP2C9*1*46 polymorphism.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据