4.7 Article

The largest prospective warfarin-treated cohort supports genetic forecasting

期刊

BLOOD
卷 113, 期 4, 页码 784-792

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2008-04-149070

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust
  2. Swedish funding agencies: The Science Council (Medicine)
  3. Heart and Lung Foundation
  4. Torsten and Ragnar Soder-berg
  5. Thureus and Selander Foundations
  6. Society of Medicine
  7. Foundation for Strategic Research
  8. Clinical Research Support (ALF)
  9. Uppsala University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genetic variants of cytochrome P450 2C9 (CYP2C9) and vitamin K epoxide reductase (VKORC1) are known to influence warfarin dose, but the effect of other genes has not been fully elucidated. We genotyped 183 polymorphisms in 29 candidate genes in 1496 Swedish patients starting warfarin treatment, and tested for association with response. CYP2C9*2 and *3 explained 12% (P = 6.63 x 10(-34)) of the variation in warfarin dose, while a single VKORC1 SNP explained 30% (P = 9.82 x 10(-100)). No SNP outside the CYP2C gene cluster and VKORC1 regions was significantly associated with dose after correction for multiple testing. During initiation of therapy, homozygosity for CYP2C9 and VKORC1 variant alleles increased the risk of over-anticoagulation, hazard ratios 21.84 (95% CI 9.46; 50.42) and 4.56 (95% CI 2.85; 7.30), respectively. One of 8 patients with CYP2C9*3/*3 (12.5%) experienced severe bleeding during the first month compared with 0.27% of other patients (P = .066). A multiple regression model using the predictors CYP2C9, VKORC1, age, sex, and drug interactions explained 59% of the variance in warfarin dose, and 53% in an independent sample of 181 Swedish individuals. In conclusion, CYP2C9 and VKORC1 significantly influenced warfarin dose and predicted individuals predisposed to unstable anticoagulation. Our results strongly support that initiation of warfarin guided by pharmacogenetics would improve clinical outcome. (Blood. 2009; 113:784-792)

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

4.7
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