Randomised comparison of a simple warfarin dosing algorithm versus a computerised anticoagulation management system for control of warfarin maintenance therapy

Summary

Excellent control of the international normalised ratio (INR) is associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients receiving warfarin, and can be achieved by anticoagulation clinics but is difficult in general practice. Anticoagulation clinics have often used validated commercial computer systems to manage the INR, but these are not usually available to general practitioners. It was the objective of this study to perform a randomised trial of a simple one-step warfarin dosing algorithm against a widely used computerised dosing system. During the period of introduction of a commercial computerised warfarin dosing system (DAWN AC) to an anticoagulation clinic, patients were randomised to have warfarin dose adjustment done according to recommendations of the existing warfarin dosing algorithm or to those of the computerised system. The study tested if the computerised system was non-inferior to the existing algorithm for the primary outcome of time in therapeutic INR range of 2.0–3.0 (TTR), with a one-sided non-inferiority margin of 4.5%. There were 541 patients randomised to commercial computerised system and 527 to the algorithm. Median follow-up was 159 days. A dose recommendation was provided and followed in 91% of occasions for the computerised system and in 90% for the algorithm (p=0.03). The mean TTR was 71.0% (standard deviation [SD] 23.2) for the computerised system and 71.9% (SD 22.9) for the algorithm (difference 0.9% [95% confidence interval: –1.4% to 4.1%];p-value for noninferiority=0.002;p-value for superiority=0.34). In conclusion, similar maintenance control of the INR was achieved with a simple one-step dosing algorithm and a commercial computerised management system.

Keywords

Clinical studies - clinical trials - oral anticoagulants - management of disease - stroke prevention - thrombosis

• References

• 1 Connolly SJ, Pogue J, Eikelboom J. et al. Benefit of oral anticoagulant over antiplatelet therapy in atrial fibrillation depends on the quality of international normalized ratio control achieved by centers and countries as measured by time in therapeutic range. Circulation 2008; 118: 2029-2037.
• 2 Jones M, McEwan P, Morgan CL. et al. Evaluation of the pattern of treatment, level of anticoagulation control, and outcome of treatment with warfarin in patients with non-valvar atrial fibrillation: a record linkage study in a large British population. Heart 2005; 91: 472-477.
• 3 Morgan CL, McEwan P, Tukiendorf A. et al. Warfarin treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation: observing outcomes associated with varying levels of INR control. Thromb Res 2009; 124: 37-41.
• 4 White HD, Gruber M, Feyzi J, Kaatz S, Tse HF, Husted S. et al. Comparison of outcomes among patients randomized to warfarin therapy according to anticoagulant control: results from SPORTIF III and V. Arch Intern Med 2007; 167: 239-245.
• 5 Holbrook A, Schulman S, Witt DM. et al. Evidence-Based Management of Anticoagulant Therapy: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest 2012; 141: e152S-e184S.
• 6 van Walraven C, Jennings A, Oake N. et al. Effect of study setting on anticoagulation control: a systematic review and metaregression. Chest 2006; 129: 1155-1166.
• 7 Nieuwlaat R, Connolly SJ, Mackay JA. et al. Computerized clinical decision support systems for therapeutic drug monitoring and dosing: A decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review. Implement Sci 2011; 6: 90.
• 8 Kim YK, Nieuwlaat R, Connolly SJ. et al. Effect of a simple two-step warfarin dosing algorithm on anticoagulant control as measured by time in therapeutic range: a pilot study. J Thromb Haemost 2010; 8: 101-106.
• 9 Ageno W, Turpie AG. A randomized comparison of a computer-based dosing program with a manual system to monitor oral anticoagulant therapy. Thromb Res 1998; 91: 237-240.
• 10 Claes N, Buntinx F, Vijgen J. et al. The Belgian Improvement Study on Oral Anticoagulation Therapy: a randomized clinical trial. Eur Heart J 2005; 26: 2159-2165.
• 11 Mitra R, Marciello MA, Brain C. et al. Efficacy of computer-aided dosing of warfarin among patients in a rehabilitation hospital. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2005; 84: 423-427.
• 12 Poller L, Keown M, Ibrahim S. et al. An international multicenter randomized study of computer-assisted oral anticoagulant dosage vs. medical staff dosage. J Thromb Haemost 2008; 6: 935-943.
• 13 Poller L, Keown M, Ibrahim S. et al. A multicentre randomised assessment of the DAWN AC computer-assisted oral anticoagulant dosage program. Thromb Haemost 2009; 101: 487-494.
• 14 Ansell J, Hirsh J, Hylek E, Jacobson A, Crowther M, Palareti G. Pharmacology and management of the vitamin K antagonists: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition). Chest 2008; 133: 160S-198S.
• 15 Schulman S, Parpia S, Stewart C. et al. Warfarin dose assessment every 4 weeks versus every 12 weeks in patients with stable international normalized ratios: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155: 653.
• 16 Wallentin L, Yusuf S, Ezekowitz MD. et al. Efficacy and safety of dabigatran compared with warfarin at different levels of international normalised ratio control for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: an analysis of the RE-LY trial. Lancet 2010; 376: 975-983.
• 17 Poller L, Keown M, Ibrahim S. et al. A multicentre randomised clinical endpoint study of PARMA 5 computer-assisted oral anticoagulant dosage. Br J Haematol 2008; 143: 274-283.
• 18 Nieuwlaat R, Connolly BJ, Hubers LM. et al. Quality of individual INR control and the risk of stroke and bleeding events in atrial fibrillation patients: A nested case control analysis of the ACTIVE W study. Thromb Res 2012; 129: 715-719.
• 19 Fuster V, Ryden LE, Cannom DS. et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/HRS focused updates incorporated into the ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines. Circulation 2011; 123: e269-e367.