Upload
keegan
View
36
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
C. O. Clarification of Optimal Anticoagulation through Genetics. A. G. The COAG Trial: A Randomized Trial of a Pharmacogenetic versus a Clinical Algorithm for Warfarin Dosing. Stephen E. Kimmel, MD, MSCE on behalf of the COAG Investigators American Heart Association November 19, 2013. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
The COAG Trial:A Randomized Trial of a Pharmacogenetic
versus a Clinical Algorithm for Warfarin Dosing
Stephen E. Kimmel, MD, MSCE on behalf of the COAG Investigators
American Heart AssociationNovember 19, 2013
C
A G Clarification of Optimal Anticoagulation through Genetics
O
CA G
OBackground
¨ The need for clinical trials prior to widespread adoption of pharmacogenetic-based drug dosing and selection remains widely debated
¨ Warfarin• Model for pharmacogenetics• Hypothesis: Adding genetic to
clinical information will improve anticoagulation control
2
CA G
OThe COAG Clinical Trial
A multicenter, double-blinded, stratified RCT of 1,015 participants, comparing two approaches:
1) initiation of warfarin therapy based on algorithms using only clinical
information (Clinical-guided dosing arm) 2) initiation of warfarin therapy
based on algorithms using clinical information and an individual’s genotype (PGx-guided dosing arm)
3
CA G
OInclusion/Exclusion
¨ Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria included:• New warfarin starters• Any indication for warfarin• Expected duration of treatment ≥ 1 month• Target INR 2–3• If prior warfarin use, maintenance dose unknown• Genetic variants unknown• Clinician opinion that no contraindications to
using the dosing algorithms
4 Am Heart J 2013;166:435-41
CA G
OIntervention Period (Days 1-5)
Consent Patient
Genotype-guided Dosing Arm
Clinical-guided Dosing Arm
Day
PGx-algorithm Based Dose w/o CYP2C9
Clinical-algorithm Based Dose
1
2
3
Clinical Dose Revision Algorithm
Dose
Randomize
PGx Based Dose, incl CYP2C9
Clinical-algorithm Based Dose
Clinical-algorithm Based Dose
Clinical-algorithmBased Dose
Genetic Dose Revision Algorithm
Dose
PGx Based Dose,incl CYP2C9
Genetics Available for 1st Dose
Genetics Not Available for 1st Dose
Clinical Dose Revision Algorithm
Dose
Genetic Dose Revision Algorithm
Dose
4
5
Dos
e In
itiat
ion
Gag
e et
al.,
CPT
200
8
Dos
e R
evis
ion
Lenz
ini e
t al.,
CPT
201
0
Am Heart J 2013;166:435-41
CA G
OMethods – Key Design Elements
¨ Randomization stratified by site and race• African American vs non-African American
¨ Blinded to dose• To maintain blinding to study arm• Isolate effects of genotyping from other post-
randomization effects¨ Genotyped all participants at randomization
• To maintain blinding¨ Pre-specified Subgroups
• Race• Sex• Number of allelic variants
6 Am Heart J 2013;166:435-41
CA G
OEndpoints
¨ Primary Outcome• Percent time in therapeutic INR range (PTTR)
at 28 days• Co-primary analyses of PTTR
– In entire study population– In those with ≥1.0 mg/day absolute difference in
initiation dose by the 2 algorithms¨ Principal secondary outcome
• INR ≥4 or serious clinical event (TE/Bleed)
7
Trials 2010;11:108.Clinical Trials 2010;7:597-604
CA G
OSample Size and Power
¨ Target sample size 1,022 to ensure >80% power
– 5.5% absolute difference in PTTR with a type-1 error rate of 0.04 among all participants
– 9% difference among the co-primary subgroup with a type-1 error rate of 0.01
8 Am Heart J 2013;166:435-41
CA G
OStudy Flow
9
1015 randomized*
514 assignedgenotype-guided
501 assignedclinically guided
Included in analysis- Primary: 484 **- Safety: 514
29 withdrew - 1 SAE - 13 provider discretion - 15 patient decision 1 lost to follow-up
29 withdrew - 2 SAE - 13 provider discretion - 14 patient decision1 became ineligible
First patient enrolled: September 2009Last patient enrolled: April 2013All follow-up completed: July 2013
Included in analysis- Primary: 471 **- Safety: 501
* Stratified by race and center** INRs available on or after day 4/5
CA G
ODemographics
10
† = Variable used in pharmacogenetic and/or clinical dose-initiation and/or dose-revision algorithm)
PGx-Guided(n=514)
Clinical-guided(n=501)
Age, years, median† 59 57Female (%) 47 51African American (%)† 27 27Diabetes (%)† 23 24Current smoker (%)† 15 14Stroke (%)† 7 6BSA, m2, median † 2.01 2.03Amiodarone use (%) † 3 2Fluvastatin use (%) † <1 <1
CA G
OWarfarin Initiation and Indication
11
PGx-guided(n=514)
Clinical-guided(n=501)
Inpatient initiation (%) 68 66Indication for warfarin therapy (%) DVT or PE only† 56 60Atrial fibrillation/flutter only 23 21Other indication only 11 11Multiple indications 10 8No indication given 1 1
† = Variable in used in pharmacogenetic and/or clinical dose-initiation and/or dose-revision algorithm)
CA G
OGenotype
12
Genetic variantsPGx-Guided
(n=514)Clinical-guided
(n=501)CYP2C9*2 (%)† No variants 81 84Heterozygous 18 14Homozygous 1 1
CYP2C9*3 (%)† No variants 92 90Heterozygous 7 10Homozygous <1 0
VKORC1 (%)† No variants (GG) 49 47Heterozygous (AG or GA) 39 40Homozygous (AA) 11 12
Withdrew prior to genotyping: 1% PGx and <1% Clinical
CA G
OMaintenance Dose Prediction
13
Pharmacogenetic-guided
Clinical-guided
Dose-initiation algorithm R2 0.48 0.27Dose-revisionalgorithm R2 0.69 0.54
• PGx demonstrated better maintenance dose prediction the clinical algorithm
• Dose prediction as expected based on prior studies
CA G
OPrimary Outcome - PTTR at 4 Weeks
14
Genotype-
guided dosingClinical-guided
dosingMean difference
(95% CI) * P-value Mean (SD) Mean (SD) PTTR All participants (n=955) 45.2 (26.6) 45.4 (25.8) -0.18 (-3.4, 3.1) 0.91
Algorithms’ Difference 0.63**≥ 1mg/d (n=392) 45.1 (25.5) 46.5 (27.1) -1.1 (-6.2, 4.0) 0.67< 1 mg/d (n=563) 45.2 (27.4) 44.7 (24.8) 0.52 (-3.7, 4.8) 0.81
* Mean difference in PTTR between genotype-guided and clinical-guided dosing groups, estimated from multivariable linear regression models that adjusted for race and clinical center
**Interaction P value to evaluate equality of mean difference between subgroups
CA G
OPre-Specified Subgroups: PTTR 4 Weeks
15
Genotype-guided dosing
Clinical-guided dosing
Mean difference (95% CI) P-value
Race 0.003 *AA(n=255) 35.2 (26.0) 43.5 (26.5) -8.3 (-15, -2.0) 0.010Non AA(n=700) 48.8 (25.9) 46.1 (25.5) 2.8 (-1.0, 6.6) 0.15
Sex 0.71 *Male(486) 44.9 (26.9) 45.5 (25.4) 0.44 (-4.2, 5.1) 0.85Female(n=469) 45.4 (26.3) 45.3 (26.2) -0.81 (-5.5, 3.9) 0.73
Total # variants 0.21 *1 variant (n=343) 48.1 (26.5) 45.0 (23.7) 2.6 (-2.9, 8.1) 0.350 or >1 variant (n=612) 43.6 (26.5) 45.7 (27.0) -1.7 (-5.8, 2.4) 0.41
* Interaction P value to evaluate equality of mean difference between subgroups
CA G
OPre-Specified Subgroups Primary Outcome
16
CA G
OINR Over Time, By Race
17
CA G
OTime to 1st Therapeutic INR
18
CA G
OAdverse Events at 4 Weeks
19
Outcome
PGx-Guided (n=514)
Clinical-guided (n=501)
Hazard ratio (95% CI) P-value
n (%) n (%) Any INR≥4, major bleeding, or TE* 105 (20) 103 (21) 1.0 (0.77, 1.3) 0.93Any INR≥4 100 (19) 92 (18) 1.1 (0.81, 1.4) 0.59Major bleeding 4 (1) 10 (2) 0.41 (0.13, 1.3) 0.13Thromboembolism 5 (1) 4 (1) 1.3 (0.34, 4.7) 0.72Clinically relevant non-major bleed 13 (3) 20 (4) 0.62 (0.30, 1.3)** 0.18All-cause death 2 (<1) 1 (<1) 2.1 (0.19, 23) 0.55* Principal secondary outcome** Odds ratio
CA G
OConclusions
¨ COAG trial does not support the hypothesis that adding genetic information to determine dosing for the first five days of warfarin therapy improves anticoagulation control compared to initiating warfarin using only clinical information
20
CA G
OConclusions
¨ No effect of pharmacogenetic-based dosing in those expected to have benefit based on predicted dose differences
¨ Effects varied by race• Clinical-based dosing may be better than PGx-
based dosing in African Americans¨ COAG highlights the importance of
performing randomized trials for pharmacogenetics, particularly for complex medicine regimens such as warfarin
21
CA G
OCOAG Clinical Centers
22
CA G
OCOAG PIs and Sites
Principal Investigator: Site:
Thomas L. Ortel, MD, PhD Duke University Medical CenterJaspal Gujral, MBBS,FACP,FRCP Georgia Regents Medical CenterVinay Shah, MD Henry Ford HospitalEmile R. Mohler III, MD Hospital of the University of PennsylvaniaScott M. Stevens, MD Intermountain Medical CenterSteven Yale, MD, FACP Marshfield Clinic Research FoundationRobert D. McBane, MD Mayo Clinic College of MedicineHenny H. Billett MD, MSc Montefiore Medical CenterRobert J. Desnick, MD, PhD Mount Sinai School of MedicinePatrice Delafontaine, MD Tulane UniversityNita A. Limdi, PharmD, PhD, MSPH University of Alabama at Birmingham
23
CA G
OCOAG PIs and Sites
Principal Investigator: Site:
Margaret C. Fang, MD, MPH University of California, San FranciscoJulie A. Johnson, PharmD University of FloridaRichard B. Horenstein, MD University of Maryland School of Medicine
Sherif Z. Abdel-Rahman, PhDUniversity of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston
Robert C. Pendleton, MD University of Utah Health CareJames A. S. Muldowney III, MD, FAAC Vanderbilt UniversityBrian F. Gage, MD, MSc Washington University School of MedicineDirector: Central Lab:Charles S. Eby, MD, PhD Washington University School of MedicineDirector: Investigational Drug Service:Kenneth Rockwell, Pharm D University of Pennsylvania
24
CA G
OAcknowledgments
¨ Funded by the NHLBI¨ Additional support
• Bristol-Meyers Squibb• GenMark Diagnostics • AutoGenomics Inc.
25
CA G
O
26
CA G
O
27