METHODS: CINAHL, Cochran Library, Clinical trial.gov, OpenGrey, PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Scopus were systematically searched from the inception up to October 2021 without language restriction. Studies comparing the safety of low-dose vitamin K1 treatment in patients with placebo or other anticoagulant reversal agents were included. We used a random-effect model for the meta-analysis. Publication bias was determined by a funnel plot with subsequent Begg's test and Egger's test.
RESULTS: From 7529 retrieved studies, 3 randomized control trials were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled data demonstrated that low-dose vitamin K was not associated with thromboembolism rate (risk ratio [RR] = 0.94; 95% CI: 0.19-4.55) major bleeding rate (RR = 0.58; 95% CI: 0.07-4.82), and minor bleeding rate (RR = 0.60; 95% CI: 0.07-5.09). Subgroup and sensitivity analysis demonstrated the nonsignificant effect of low-dose vitamin K on the risk of thromboembolism. Publication bias was not apparent, according to Begg's test and Egger's test (P = .090 and 0.134, respectively).
CONCLUSION: The current evidence does not support the role of low-dose vitamin K as a trigger of thromboembolism in supratherapeutic INR patients with mechanical heart valves. Nevertheless, more well-designed studies with larger sample sizes are required to justify this research question.
METHODS: The warfarin maintenance doses for 140 patients were predicted using the dosing tool and compared with the observed maintenance dose. The impact of genotype was assessed by predicting maintenance doses with prior parameter values known to be altered by genetic variability (eg, EC50 for VKORC1 genotype). The prior population was evaluated by fitting the published kinetic-pharmacodynamic model, which underpins the Bayesian tool, to the observed data using NONMEM and comparing the model parameter estimates with published values.
RESULTS: The Bayesian tool produced positively biased dose predictions in the new cohort of patients (mean prediction error [95% confidence interval]; 0.32 mg/d [0.14-0.5]). The bias was only observed in patients requiring ≥7 mg/d. The direction and magnitude of the observed bias was not influenced by genotype. The prior model provided a good fit to our data, which suggests that the bias was not caused by different prior and posterior populations.
CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance doses for patients requiring ≥7 mg/d were overpredicted. The bias was not due to the influence of genotype nor was it related to differences between the prior and posterior populations. There is a need for a more mechanistic model that captures warfarin dose-response relationship at higher warfarin doses.