RESUMEN
Patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) require immediate treatment with anticoagulants such as acenocoumarol. This multicentre randomised clinical trial evaluated the effectiveness of a dosing pharmacogenetic algorithm versus a standard-of-care dose adjustment at the beginning of acenocoumarol treatment. We included 144 patients with VTE. On the day of recruitment, a blood sample was obtained for genotyping (CYP2C9*2, CYP2C9*3, VKORC1, CYP4F2, APOE). Dose adjustment was performed on day 3 or 4 after the start of treatment according to the assigned group and the follow-up was at 12 weeks. The principal variable was the percentage of patients with an international normalised ratio (INR) within the therapeutic range on day 7. Thirty-four (47.2%) patients had an INR within the therapeutic range at day 7 after the start of treatment in the genotype-guided group compared with 14 (21.9%) in the control group (p = 0.0023). There were no significant differences in the time to achieve a stable INR, the number of INRs within the range in the first 6 weeks and at the end of study. Our results suggest the use of a pharmacogenetic algorithm for patients with VTE could be useful in achieving target INR control in the first days of treatment.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Transfusion of blood components continues to be an important therapeutic resource into the 21st century. Between 5 and 58% of transfusions carried out are estimated to be unnecessary. According to several studies, at least 20% of packed red blood cell transfusions (RBCT) are administered in hospital emergency departments (ED), but few data are available about the appropriateness of RBCT in this setting. This multicentre, cross-sectional observational study aims to assess the appropriateness of RBCT indications and transfused volumes in patients who attend ED. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study cohort is made up of consecutive consenting adult patients (≥18 years old) who received RBCT in ED over a 3-month period and for whom relevant clinical data were collected and analysed. RESULTS: Data from 908 RBCT episodes (2±1 units per transfused patient) were analysed. RBCT was considered appropriate in 21.4% (n=195), with significant differences according to RBCT indication (p<0.001), hospital level (p<0.001) and prescribing physician (p=0.002). Pre-transfusion haemoglobin level (Hb) negatively correlated with RBCT appropriateness (r=-0.616; p<0.01). Only 72.4% of appropriate RBCT had a post-transfusion Hb assessment (n=516). Of these, 45% were considered to be over-transfused (n=232), with significant differences according to RBCT indication (p=0.012) and prescribing physician (p=0.047). Overall, 584/1,433 (41%) of evaluable RBC units were unnecessarily transfused. DISCUSSION: The appropriateness of RBCT in ED is similar to other hospital departments, but the rate of over-transfusion was high. These data support the need for a reassessment after transfusion of each RBC unit before further units are prescribed. In view of these results, we recommend that physicians should be made more aware of the need to prescribe RBCT appropriately in order to reduce over-transfusion.
