Steven R. Kayser

Accuracy of the Pharmacogenetic Dosing Table in the Warfarin Label in Predicting Initial Therapeutic Warfarin Doses in a Large, Racially Diverse Cohort

Study Objectives. To compare the accuracy of the pharmacogenetic dosing table included in the warfarin label with two empiric dosing strategies in predicting initial therapeutic warfarin doses, and to identify factors that influence the accuracy of the table.

The Influence of Ethnicity on Warfarin Dosage Requirement

BACKGROUND: The optimal dose of warfarin varies among individuals, and the prediction of a maintenance dose is difficult. Ethnicity has been reported to influence warfarin dosing. OBJECTIVE: To quantitate the influence of ethnicity on warfarin dose requirement. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study at a university anticoagulation clinic to evaluate the influence of ethnicity on warfarin dose. Inclusion criteria included age ⩾18 years, target international normalized ratio (INR) 2–3, and warfarin management within the clinic for ⩾3 months with a minimum of 5 clinic visits. We collected clinical and demographic data including age, gender, weight, ethnicity, disease states, concomitant medications, indication, weekly warfarin dosage, and INR. To assess potential confounders, multivariate, repeated-measures regression analysis was used to identify and adjust for variables that may influence the maintenance dose of warfarin. RESULTS: Of the 345 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 27% were Asian American, 6% Hispanic, 54% white, and 14% African American. The adjusted mean (95% CI) weekly warfarin doses for patients with an INR goal of 2 to 3 were Asian Americans 24 mg (21 to 27), Hispanics 31 mg (25 to 37), whites 36 mg (34 to 39), and African Americans 43 mg (39 to 47) (p < 0.001). Additional factors found to influence warfarin dose requirement included age, weight, concomitant use of amiodarone, and diagnosis of venous thromboembolism. CONCLUSIONS: Warfarin dose requirements vary across ethnic groups even when adjusted for confounding factors, suggesting that genetic variation contributes to interpatient variability.

Pharmacogenetics: from discovery to patient care

PURPOSE The basic concepts of pharmacogenetics, pharmacogenetic study approaches, factors to consider when applying pharmacogenetic discoveries to patient care, and potential roles for pharmacists in pharmacogenetics are discussed. SUMMARY The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recognized pharmacogenomics as an opportunity to identify new biomarkers that may expedite the drug development process. Currently, there are over 50 drugs with pharmacogenetic discoveries on their labeling. Sequence variations in drug disposition genes can alter the pharmacokinetics of a drug, while sequence variations in drug target genes can change the pharmacodynamics of the drug. The two most common strategies to test a pharmacogenetic question are the candidate-gene approach and genomewide association study. Given the complex interplay among the many factors that influence a drug dose, determination of an appropriate dose of a particular drug for a given patient will eventually require knowledge about both genetic and nongenetic factors that affect drug disposition and pharmacodynamics. Many factors can influence the application of pharmacogenetic discoveries to patient care. Before these discoveries find widespread application in clinical practice, additional work is needed, including randomized clinical trials to evaluate the clinical utility of a pharmacogenetic test, the development of guidelines for the clinical use of various pharmacogenetic tests, and provider education on pharmacogenetics. CONCLUSION Pharmacogenetics has made significant progress in the past decade, and many pharmacogenetic discoveries have now been included on FDA-approved drug labeling. Pharmacogenetic discoveries may further promote safe and effective use of medications by more accurately predicting an individuals drug response.

A review of three stand-alone topical thrombins for surgical hemostasis

BACKGROUND Topical thrombins are active hemostatic agents that can be used to minimize blood loss during surgery. Before 2007, the only topical thrombins available were derived from bovine plasma. Antibody formation to bovine thrombin and/or factor V, with subsequent risk of cross-reactivity with human factor V, and hemorrhagic complications associated with human factor-V deficiencies have been described in case reports of surgeries in which bovine thrombins were used. This risk is now included in the boxed warning section of the bovine thrombin prescribing information. In 2007 and 2008, 2 new topical thrombins from nonbovine sources received approval for use from the US Food and Drug Administration. The 3 active topical thrombins that are currently marketed are bovine plasma-derived thrombin, human plasma-derived thrombin, and human recombinant thrombin. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this review was to evaluate the literature on the efficacy and safety of topical thrombins and discuss the pharmacoeconomic considerations associated with their use. METHODS PubMed, EMBASE, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts were searched for relevant papers published in English through October 10,2008, using the terms thrombin, human recombinant thrombin, bovine thrombin, plasma derived thrombin, and topical thrombin. Manufacturer-provided materials were also reviewed. Abstracts and unpublished data, as well as evaluations of sealants, adhesives, glues, and other hemostats that contain thrombin mixed with fibrinogen and other clotting factors, were excluded. RESULTS Four randomized, double-blind studies involving the active, stand-alone topical thrombins were found. The bovine thrombin involved in these studies was the predecessor to the currently marketed, highly purified bovine formulation. No studies comparing the human products, studies involving the highly purified bovine preparation, or placebo-controlled studies involving bovine thrombin were found. In a Phase III comparison of human recombinant thrombin and bovine thrombin, the percentages of patients who achieved hemostasis within 10 minutes of topical thrombin application were 95.4% and 95.1%, respectively (95% CI, -3.7 to 5.0). The incidence of hemostasis within 10 minutes was also similar in a Phase III comparison of human plasma-derived thrombin and bovine thrombin (both, 97.4% [95% CI, 0.96 to 1.05]). In the study that compared human recombinant and bovine thrombin, the incidence of antiproduct antibody formation was 21.5% (43/200) in the bovine thrombin group and 1.5% (3/198) in the human recombinant thrombin group (P < 0.001); patients with antibodies to bovine thrombin had numerically higher incidences of bleeding or thromboembolic events than did patients without these antibodies (19% vs 13%; P value not reported). Human plasma-derived thrombin is available as a frozen sterile solution that must be thawed before application, whereas the human recombinant and bovine plasma-derived products are supplied as unrefrigerated sterile powders that must be reconstituted before use. The human thrombins are more costly than bovine thrombin on a per-vial basis. The average wholesale prices (US

Potential interaction between ritonavir and carbamazepine

, 2008) for 5000-IU vials of bovine thrombin and human recombinant thrombin were

Therapeutic Equivalency of Low-Molecular-Weight Heparins

87.85 and

Emergency Department Management of Patients on Warfarin Therapy

103.20, respectively; the average wholesale price for a 4000- to 6000-IU vial of human plasma-derived thrombin was

Bending the Curve Toward Increased Use of Generic Drugs: Comment on “When Choosing Statin Therapy”

96.00. CONCLUSIONS Topical thrombins vary in the ways in which they are manufactured and their safety profiles, storage requirements, and costs. Human recombinant thrombin and human plasma-derived thrombin have each been shown to have hemostatic efficacy comparable to that of bovine thrombin. Bovine thrombin carries the risk of formation of cross-reactive antibodies to bovine thrombin, factor V, and other impurities that may be present in these formulations. Immunogenicity data for the currently marketed, highly purified bovine thrombin relative to older formulations of bovine thrombin could not be found. Whether the potential safety advantage justifies the added cost of the human products remains to be established.

Key Articles and Guidelines in the Management of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: 2011 Update

Ritonavir (RTV), a protease inhibitor, and carbamazepine (CBZ), an anticonvulsant, were administered concurrently to a patient who had human immunodeficiency virus infection and epilepsy. The combination resulted in elevated serum concentrations of CBZ, with accompanying vomiting, vertigo, and transient liver dysfunction. After discontinuing RTV and reducing the dosage of CBZ, the serum concentration of CBZ returned to the optimal range, symptoms subsided, and liver function returned to baseline. Carbamazepine is metabolized in the liver to a large extent by the cytochrome P450 (CYP) system, especially CYP3A4, 2C8, and 1A2, whereas RTV is metabolized primarily by CYP3A and is a potent inhibitor of this enzyme. Careful clinical monitoring may help prevent adverse drug interactions when these drugs are administered concurrently.

Clinical pharmacy consultation for pharmacogenetic testing

OBJECTIVE: To review the recent literature on the approved uses of enoxaparin, dalteparin, ardeparin, and tinzaparin and the evidence for therapeutic equivalence. DATA SOURCES: A MEDLINE search (1993–January 2001) was conducted to identify English-language literature available on enoxaparin, dalteparin, ardeparin, and tinzaparin. STUDY SELECTION: All controlled trials evaluating low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) versus standard therapy powered to detect a significant difference were reviewed. DATA EXTRACTION: Agents were reviewed with regard to safety and efficacy. DATA SYNTHESIS: As a class, LMWHs have chemical, physical, and clinical similarities. LMWHs have greater bioavailability, longer half-lives, a more predictable pharmacologic response, possible improved safety, and similar or greater efficacy compared with unfractionated heparin (UFH). Because of this, enoxaparin, dalteparin, ardeparin, and tinzaparin are being considered as alternatives to UFH or warfarin, and there is potential for therapeutic interchange. Evaluation of clinical trials is limited because of differing diagnostic methods, drug administration times, dose equivalencies, and outcome measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Only 1 trial has evaluated 2 LMWHs in a direct comparison in the same study. There is insufficient evidence for determining the therapeutic equivalence of LMWHs.