Warfarin dose and INR related to genotypes of CYP2C9 and VKORC1 in patients with myocardial infarction

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Warfarin treatment has a narrow therapeutic range, requiring meticulous monitoring and dosage titration. Individual dosage requirement has recently partly been explained by genetic variation of the warfarin metabolizing enzyme CYP2C9 and the Vitamin K-activating enzyme VKORC1. In the WARIS-II study, comparing three different antithrombotic regimens after myocardial infarction, warfarin treatment reduced thrombotic events, but was associated with more frequent bleeding than use of acetylsalisylic acid (ASA) alone.</p> <p>Aims</p> <p>The primary aim of the present study was to investigate the relation between genotypes of CYP2C9 and VKORC1 and warfarin maintenance dose in myocardial infarction. The secondary aim was to relate the genotypes to international normalized ratio (INR).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Genotyping was performed in 212 myocardial infarction patients from the WARIS-II study by robotic isolation of DNA from EDTA whole blood (MagNa Pure LC) before PCR amplification (LightCycler) and melting point analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The 420 C>T substitution of CYP2C9*2, the 1075 A>C substitution of CYP2C9*3 and the 1173 C>T substitution of VKORC1 had minor allele frequencies of, 11.3%, 5.7% and 36.6% respectively. Warfarin weekly dose varied between 17 mg and 74 mg among the patients. INR did not vary between genotypes. Warfarin dosage requirement was significantly associated with CYP2C9 and VKORC1 genotypes, treatment group and age. The VKORC1 genotype contributed 24.5% to the interindividual variation in warfarin dosage, whereas the combined CYP2C9 genotypes were only responsible for 7.2% of the dose variation.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>CYP2C9 and VKORC1 genotype frequencies in myocardial infarction patients appear similar to other patient groups and have similar impact on warfarin maintenance dose.</p

Critical appraisal of adverse effects reporting in the ‘Treatment for Adolescents With Depression Study (TADS)’

ObjectiveTo identify all publications from the ‘Treatment for Adolescents With Depression Study (TADS)’ and assess the findings regarding occurrence of any adverse effects in the treatment groups both for the short-term and long-term study stages.DesignDescriptive analysis of TADS publications with any information on adverse effects.ResultsWe identified 48 publications describing various aspects of the TADS, in which 439 adolescent patients received treatment with fluoxetine, cognitive–behavioural therapy, cognitive–behavioural therapy plus fluoxetine or placebo. Eight publications were assessed as providing some data on adverse effects. Risk of suicidal behaviour was the only adverse effect that was addressed in all publications. Several psychiatric and physical adverse effects were reported during the first 12 weeks, but not mentioned in reports from later study stages. Common adverse effects of fluoxetine, such as weight changes or sexual problems, were not identified or mentioned in the publications.ConclusionsThe TADS publications do not present a comprehensive assessment of treatment risk with fluoxetine in adolescents, especially for more than 12 weeks of treatment. Risk of suicidality was the only adverse effect that was reported over time. Reporting of adverse effects was incomplete with regard to the long-term safety profile of fluoxetine.</jats:sec

Critical appraisal of adverse effects reporting in the 'Treatment for Adolescents With Depression Study (TADS)'

To identify all publications from the ‘Treatment for Adolescents With Depression Study (TADS)’ and assess the findings regarding occurrence of any adverse effects in the treatment groups both for the short-term and long-term study stages.Descriptive analysis of TADS publications with any information on adverse effects.We identified 48 publications describing various aspects of the TADS, in which 439 adolescent patients received treatment with fluoxetine, cognitive–behavioural therapy, cognitive–behavioural therapy plus fluoxetine or placebo. Eight publications were assessed as providing some data on adverse effects. Risk of suicidal behaviour was the only adverse effect that was addressed in all publications. Several psychiatric and physical adverse effects were reported during the first 12 weeks, but not mentioned in reports from later study stages. Common adverse effects of fluoxetine, such as weight changes or sexual problems, were not identified or mentioned in the publications.The TADS publications do not present a comprehensive assessment of treatment risk with fluoxetine in adolescents, especially for more than 12 weeks of treatment. Risk of suicidality was the only adverse effect that was reported over time. Reporting of adverse effects was incomplete with regard to the long-term safety profile of fluoxetine

Adverse effects information in clinical guidelines on pharmacological treatment of depression in children and adolescents: a systematic review

ObjectivesTo analyse to what extent clinical practice guidelines on drug treatment of depression in children and adolescents mention the risk of adverse effects, to characterise the citations in the guidelines and to assess to what extent data from a major study (Treatment for Adolescents With Depression Study, TADS) was used as basis for information about adverse effects.DesignSystematic review of clinical guidelines and clinical decision support tools.Data sourcesPubMed, EMBASE, guideline collections, Health libraries.Eligibility criteriaWe included national guidelines on depression in children and adolescents from European and/or English-speaking countries, published in English, German, French or any Scandinavian language since 2008. We also included well-known, international clinical decision support tools.Data extraction and synthesisGuidelines were examined by all authors to identify and classify information on adverse effects. Citations for statements on adverse effects were extracted and classified by category. The extent of citations about suicidality risk versus other adverse effects was assessed.Results19 guidelines were assessed. All guidelines discussed risk of suicidal behaviour connected with use of antidepressants. Most guidelines mentioned some other psychiatric adverse effects. Several guidelines did not include information on well-known and common somatic adverse effects. Most references concerned risk of suicidality. Adverse effects identified in underlying studies were not always presented. The TADS study was referred to, directly or indirectly, by 18/19 guidelines, but some only referred to TADS with regard to suicidality without citing the study’s findings of somatic adverse effects. No guideline commented on the lack of long-term adverse effects data from TADS.ConclusionsGuidelines for treatment of depression in children and adolescents vary widely regarding information on adverse effects. Many guidelines do not provide information on common somatic adverse effects. There is no consensus as to what extent risks of adverse effects connected with use of antidepressants should be described in guidelines.</jats:sec

Characterization of gastrointestinal adverse effects reported in clinical studies of corticosteroid therapy

Objectives: To examine whether 159 studies included in a previous meta-analysis reported on gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation in accordance with the CONSORT extension for reporting harms outcomes (CONSORT Harms recommendations checklist); whether differences were associated with funding source, journal, or publication year; and whether the CONSORT Harms checklist is a suitable tool for evaluation of adverse effects reporting. Study Design and Setting: Articles were assessed for fulfillment of the CONSORT Harms recommendations, funding source, publication type, and year. Agreement between reviewers was assessed by comparing scores for each study. Results: The mean CONSORT Harms score was 5.25 out of 10 (standard deviation ± 2.09). Most studies included information on participant withdrawals (133 studies, 83.6%), absolute risk of gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation (130 studies, 81.8%), and how harms-related information was collected (118 studies, 74.2%). Reporting of gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation increased with higher scores (odds ratio 1.173, P = 0.042). There was no significant association between CONSORT Harms score achieved and publication year or funding source, but there was a trend toward higher scores in studies published in the major medical journals (score difference 0.78, P = 0.052). Definitions of gastrointestinal bleeding differed between studies. Reviewer agreement was fair to moderate with large variations. Conclusion: Few studies in the systematic review received high scores using the CONSORT Harms criteria. Most studies reported on the most important criteria regarding risk of gastrointestinal bleeding or perforation. Reviewer agreement showed large variations due to imprecise texts and ambiguous criteria. Routine scoring according to fulfillment of the CONSORT Harms recommendations would be inadvisable without qualified judgment