Skip to main content

Primary Research · 2006

Dietary vitamin K variability affects International Normalized Ratio (INR) coagulation indices

Couris et al. · Int J Vitam Nutr Res, 2006

Key finding

Inverse correlation between variability in INR and changes in vitamin K intake (r = -0.600, p < 0.01). VARIABILITY is the issue, not absolute level.

BACKGROUND: Changes in daily vitamin K intake may contribute to marked variations in the International Normalized Ratio (INR) coagulation index in patients receiving oral warfarin anticoagulant therapy, with potentially serious adverse outcomes. Thus, patients receiving warfarin therapy are routinely counseled regarding this drug-nutrient interaction and are instructed to maintain consistent vitamin K intakes, though little quantitative information about this relationship is available. OBJECTIVE: To determine the quantitative impact of variability in dietary vitamin K(1) (phylloquinone) intake, assessed by a validated patient self-monitoring instrument, on weekly INR in patients receiving warfarin anticoagulant therapy. METHODS: A prospective dietary assessment study was conducted at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. Sixty outpatients (37 males and 23 females) were selected with a mean age 60.3 +/- 16.8 years, who began oral warfarin anticoagulant therapy within 14 days prior to their first clinic visit to an outpatient anticoagulation therapy unit. Exclusion criteria included more than 2 drinks of alcohol per day, inability to speak English, and concurrent disease states affecting warfarin therapy such as liver disease and terminal illness. Over the five-week study period, participants recorded daily intakes in specified amounts of all food items appearing on a validated dietary self-assessment tool. Concomitant use of prescription and/or non-prescription medications was also obtained. Concurrent daily warfarin dose and adherence to the drug regimen, concomitant use of prescription and/or non-prescription medications known to interact with warfarin, and weekly INR were obtained. Week-to-week changes in vitamin K intake, warfarin dose, and INR were determined and cross-correlated. RESULTS: Forty-three patients (28 males and 15 females) completed the study and 17 dropped out. Pearson's correlation coefficient revealed the variability in INR and changes in vitamin K intake were inversely correlated (r = -0.600, p < 0.01). Multiple regression analysis (r = 0.848) indicated that a weekly change of 714 mug dietary vitamin K significantly altered weekly INR by 1 unit (p < 0.01) and a weekly change of 14.5 mg warfarin significantly altered weekly INR by 1 unit (p < 0.01) after adjustment for age, sex, weight, height, and concomitant use of medications known to interact with warfarin. CONCLUSIONS: Patients taking warfarin and consuming markedly changing amounts of vitamin K may have a variable weekly INR with potentially unstable anticoagulant outcomes.

Abstract sourced from PubMed, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine. Displayed in the authors’ own words for context; our critique is in the sections below.

Read the full paper

How to read a study like this

The same questions worth asking about any research paper, not just this one. Worth a minute even if you trust the grade.

Who was studied, and do you resemble them?

Supplement effects often depend on baseline status. Vitamin D helps people who are deficient; iron helps people who are anemic. A result in people unlike you may not apply to you.

What was measured, and does it matter in daily life?

A study that shows a blood marker moved isn't the same as a study that shows people felt or functioned better. Ask what the outcome means in practice.

How large was the effect — not just whether it was significant.

'Statistically significant' only means the effect is unlikely to be zero. It doesn't tell you the effect is large enough to notice. Look for effect sizes, not just p-values.

Who paid for the trial, and what did they stand to gain?

Industry-funded trials are several times more likely to report positive results than independent ones. It's not usually fraud — it's subtle design and reporting choices. Weight accordingly.

Has anyone else replicated this?

Single positive trials are hypotheses. Replication by independent groups is what turns a hypothesis into reliable evidence. If the only positive trial is the one you're reading, wait.

Does the dose in the trial match what's being sold?

Supplement marketing routinely cites trials that used 5–10× the dose in the product. If the effective dose was 2 g/day and the capsule has 200 mg, expect roughly no effect.

About this page

Formulate maintains a registry of clinical studies cited across its guides and evidence grades. This page links the study metadata to the content that cites it — one canonical entry per landmark study.

The full citation chain is public so readers can verify claims without hunting through individual guide pages. Browse all cited studies →

Note: Study summaries on this page are editorial interpretations of the research. Always consult the primary source before drawing clinical conclusions.