A statistical and clinical evaluation of fingerstick and routine laboratory prothrombin time measurements.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare prothrombin time measurements by fingerstick and routine laboratory methods. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: University-affiliated anticoagulation clinic. PATIENTS: Thirty-three patients receiving warfarin with stable anticoagulation for 3 months preceding the two studies. INTERVENTIONS: Groups 1 (17 patients) and 2 (16 patients) provided 150 and 125 paired samples, respectively, for fingerstick and routine laboratory analysis. The fact that no patient required a dosage change allowed for a clinical assessment. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Correlation and agreement between methods were good in group 1 but poor in group 2. Fingerstick results were less variable (smaller standard deviation and smaller coefficient of repeatability) in both groups. By analysis of discrepant pairs (25 in group 1, 63 in group 2), the routine laboratory results indicated dosage changes erroneously more often than did the fingerstick method. CONCLUSIONS: In these two trials, the fingerstick system was superior to the routine laboratory method in that it was more reliable (less variability and more repeatable) and less likely to indicate dosage changes erroneously.

Drug interactions.

Drug-drug interactions are most likely to occur in patients receiving multiple medications and with drugs that have a narrow therapeutic window. The outcome may be harmful or beneficial, but the relative incidence of clinically important adverse drug interactions remains unknown. Many interactions may be minimized or avoided; the prescriber must be aware of this potential in order to take the necessary precautions.

Reliance on prothrombin time ratios causes significant errors in anticoagulation therapy.

BACKGROUND: The intensity of warfarin anticoagulation in the United States may be inappropriate if the international normalized ratio (INR) is not used, or if the international sensitivity index (ISI) of the thromboplastin is outside the range of 2.2 to 2.6. METHODS: Fifty-three hospital laboratories provided data on the sensitivity of their thromboplastin and whether they reported INR values. Additional data on thromboplastin sensitivity were obtained from 140 laboratories involved in the Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation study. The three major manufacturers of thromboplastin confirmed the range of thromboplastin sensitivity reported by the laboratories. RESULTS: Of 53 laboratories surveyed, 16 (30%) could not provide ISI data and only 11 (21%) reported INR results. Unlabeled thromboplastin was being used by 20% to 24% of laboratories, and only 8% to 20% were using thromboplastins with an ISI of 2.2 to 2.6. At the time the three manufacturers were contacted, they reported marketing thromboplastins with ISI values from 1.2 to 2.8, but none of the thromboplastins at that time had ISI values between 2.2 and 2.6. CONCLUSION: Warfarin therapy in the United States is managed inappropriately because most laboratories do not report INRs and the variability in thromboplastin sensitivity produces misleading prothrombin time ratio results. Additionally, recent research may require reexamination if INR or ISI data were not provided.

Potential warfarin-ciprofloxacin interaction in patients receiving long-term anticoagulation.

This study prospectively evaluated the potential interaction between the oral anticoagulant warfarin and the quinolone antimicrobial agent ciprofloxacin. After a 10-day placebo lead-in phase, 16 patients stabilized with long-term warfarin therapy were randomized to receive ciprofloxacin 500 mg or a matching placebo twice/day for 10 days. International normalized ratios (INRs) measured by both standard laboratory analysis and by Coumatrak (finger-stick) methods were evaluated at 3- to 5-day intervals. No patient experienced a significant increase in INR. No patient experienced a bleeding event. These data support the fact that a warfarin-ciprofloxacin interaction does not routinely occur at this dosage and duration of ciprofloxacin therapy.

Gentamicin pharmacokinetics, nephrotoxicity, and prediction of mortality in febrile neutropenic patients.

The pharmacokinetics of gentamicin in 34 febrile neutropenic patients (40 courses) were compared with those in 40 nonneutropenic patients receiving the drug. No pharmacokinetic differences were seen in half-life, volume of distribution (liter per kilogram; total and ideal body weight), or clearance (milliliter per minute per 1.73 m2). The incidences of nephrotoxicity in the two groups were not statistically different. Because of the small number of patients with positive cultures, no relationship between initial peak serum gentamicin concentration and mortality could be determined. Mortality risk factors that were determined to be statistically important included presence of pneumonia, persistent fever in the presence of anti-infective therapy of more than 1 week duration, and peak serum creatinine of greater than 1.2 mg/dl. Initial aminoglycoside dosing in the febrile neutropenic patient should be similar to that in the nonneutropenic patient, with concentrations in serum monitored and doses adjusted accordingly.