Pharmacogenomic trial design: use of a PK/PD model to explore warfarin dosing interventions through clinical trial simulation

Warfarin-A natural anticoagulant: A review of research trends for precision medication

BACKGROUND

Warfarin is a widely prescribed anticoagulant in the clinic. It has a more considerable individual variability, and many factors affect its variability. Mathematical models can quantify the quantitative impact of these factors on individual variability.

PURPOSE

The aim is to comprehensively analyze the advanced warfarin dosing algorithm based on pharmacometrics and machine learning models of personalized warfarin dosage.

METHODS

A bibliometric analysis of the literature retrieved from PubMed and Scopus was performed using VOSviewer. The relevant literature that reported the precise dosage of warfarin calculation was retrieved from the database. The multiple linear regression (MLR) algorithm was excluded because a recent systematic review that mainly reviewed this algorithm has been reported. The following terms of quantitative systems pharmacology, mechanistic model, physiologically based pharmacokinetic model, artificial intelligence, machine learning, pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and warfarin were added as MeSH Terms or appearing in Title/Abstract into query box of PubMed, then humans and English as filter were added to retrieve the literature.

RESULTS

Bibliometric analysis revealed important co-occuring MeShH and index keywords. Further, the United States, China, and the United Kingdom were among the top countries contributing in this domain. Some studies have established personalized warfarin dosage models using pharmacometrics and machine learning-based algorithms. There were 54 related studies, including 14 pharmacometric models, 31 artificial intelligence models, and 9 model evaluations. Each model has its advantages and disadvantages. The pharmacometric model contains biological or pharmacological mechanisms in structure. The process of pharmacometric model development is very time- and labor-intensive. Machine learning is a purely data-driven approach; its parameters are more mathematical and have less biological interpretation. However, it is faster, more efficient, and less time-consuming. Most published models of machine learning algorithms were established based on cross-sectional data sourced from the database.

CONCLUSION

Future research on personalized warfarin medication should focus on combining the advantages of machine learning and pharmacometrics algorithms to establish a more robust warfarin dosage algorithm. Randomized controlled trials should be performed to evaluate the established algorithm of warfarin dosage. Moreover, a more user-friendly and accessible warfarin precision medicine platform should be developed.

Cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenetics-guided warfarin therapy vs. alternative anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation

Pharmacogenetics-guided warfarin dosing is an alternative to standard clinical algorithms and new oral anticoagulants for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. However, clinical evidence for pharmacogenetics-guided warfarin dosing is limited to intermediary outcomes, and consequently, there is a lack of information on the cost-effectiveness of anticoagulation treatment options. A clinical trial simulation of S-warfarin was used to predict times within therapeutic range for different dosing algorithms. Relative risks of clinical events, obtained from a meta-analysis of trials linking times within therapeutic range with outcomes, served as inputs to an economic analysis. Neither dabigatran nor rivaroxaban were cost-effective options. Along the cost-effectiveness frontier, in relation to clinically dosed warfarin, pharmacogenetics-guided warfarin and apixaban had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £13,226 and £20,671 per quality-adjusted life year gained, respectively. On the basis of our simulations, apixaban appears to be the most cost-effective treatment.

A systems approach to designing effective clinical trials using simulations

BACKGROUND

Pharmacogenetics in warfarin clinical trials have failed to show a significant benefit in comparison with standard clinical therapy. This study demonstrates a computational framework to systematically evaluate preclinical trial design of target population, pharmacogenetic algorithms, and dosing protocols to optimize primary outcomes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We programmatically created an end-to-end framework that systematically evaluates warfarin clinical trial designs. The framework includes options to create a patient population, multiple dosing strategies including genetic-based and nongenetic clinical-based, multiple-dose adjustment protocols, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamics modeling and international normalization ratio prediction, and various types of outcome measures. We validated the framework by conducting 1000 simulations of the applying pharmacogenetic algorithms to individualize dosing of warfarin (CoumaGen) clinical trial primary end points. The simulation predicted a mean time in therapeutic range of 70.6% and 72.2% (P=0.47) in the standard and pharmacogenetic arms, respectively. Then, we evaluated another dosing protocol under the same original conditions and found a significant difference in the time in therapeutic range between the pharmacogenetic and standard arm (78.8% versus 73.8%; P=0.0065), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrate that this simulation framework is useful in the preclinical assessment phase to study and evaluate design options and provide evidence to optimize the clinical trial for patient efficacy and reduced risk.

The Creating an Optimal Warfarin Nomogram (CROWN) Study

A significant proportion of warfarin dose variability is explained by variation in the genotypes of the cytochrome P450 CYP2C9 and the vitamin K epoxide reductase complex, VKORC1, enzymes that influence warfarin metabolism and sensitivity, respectively. We sought to develop an optimal pharmacogenetic warfarin dosing algorithm that incorporated clinical and genetic information. We enroled patients initiating warfarin therapy. Genotyping was performed of the VKORC1, -1639G>A, the CYP2C9*2, 430C>T, and the CYP2C9*3, 1075C>A genotypes. The initial warfarin dosing algorithm (Algorithm A) was based upon established clinical practice and published warfarin pharmacogenetic information. Subsequent dosing algorithms (Algorithms B and Algorithm C) were derived from pharmacokinetic / pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) modelling of warfarin dose, international normalised ratio (INR), clinical and genetic factors from patients treated by the preceding algorithm(s). The primary outcome was the time in the therapeutic range, considered an INR of 1.8 to 3.2. A total of 344 subjects are included in the study analyses. The mean percentage time within the therapeutic range for each subject increased progressively from Algorithm A to Algorithm C from 58.9 (22.0), to 59.7 (23.0), to 65.8 (16.9) percent (p = 0.04). Improvement also occurred in most secondary endpoints, which included the per-patient percentage of INRs outside of the therapeutic range (p = 0.004), the time to the first therapeutic INR (p = 0.07), and the time to achieve stable therapeutic anticoagulation (p < 0.001). In conclusion, warfarin pharmacogenetic dosing can be optimised in real time utilising observed PK/PD information in an adaptive fashion.