A randomized controlled trial of shared care versus routine care for patients receiving oral anticoagulant therapy

Efficacy of sustained knowledge translation (KT) interventions in chronic disease management in older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of complex interventions

BACKGROUND

Chronic disease management (CDM) through sustained knowledge translation (KT) interventions ensures long-term, high-quality care. We assessed implementation of KT interventions for supporting CDM and their efficacy when sustained in older adults.

METHODS

Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis engaging 17 knowledge users using integrated KT.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including adults (> 65 years old) with chronic disease(s), their caregivers, health and/or policy-decision makers receiving a KT intervention to carry out a CDM intervention for at least 12 months (versus other KT interventions or usual care).

INFORMATION SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from each database's inception to March 2020.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Sustainability, fidelity, adherence of KT interventions for CDM practice, quality of life (QOL) and quality of care (QOC). Data extraction, risk of bias (ROB) assessment: We screened, abstracted and appraised articles (Effective Practice and Organisation of Care ROB tool) independently and in duplicate.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We performed both random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses and estimated mean differences (MDs) for continuous and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data.

RESULTS

We included 158 RCTs (973,074 participants [961,745 patients, 5540 caregivers, 5789 providers]) and 39 companion reports comprising 329 KT interventions, involving patients (43.2%), healthcare providers (20.7%) or both (10.9%). We identified 16 studies described as assessing sustainability in 8.1% interventions, 67 studies as assessing adherence in 35.6% interventions and 20 studies as assessing fidelity in 8.7% of the interventions. Most meta-analyses suggested that KT interventions improved QOL, but imprecisely (36 item Short-Form mental [SF-36 mental]: MD 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] [- 1.25, 3.47], 14 RCTs, 5876 participants, I2 = 96%; European QOL-5 dimensions: MD 0.01, 95% CI [- 0.01, 0.02], 15 RCTs, 6628 participants, I2 = 25%; St George's Respiratory Questionnaire: MD - 2.12, 95% CI [- 3.72, - 0.51] 44 12 RCTs, 2893 participants, I2 = 44%). KT interventions improved QOC (OR 1.55, 95% CI [1.29, 1.85], 12 RCTS, 5271 participants, I2 = 21%).

CONCLUSIONS

KT intervention sustainability was infrequently defined and assessed. Sustained KT interventions have the potential to improve QOL and QOC in older adults with CDM. However, their overall efficacy remains uncertain and it varies by effect modifiers, including intervention type, chronic disease number, comorbidities, and participant age.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42018084810.

HFA of the ESC Position paper on the management of LVAD supported patients for the non LVAD specialist healthcare provider Part 1: Introduction and at the non-hospital settings in the community

The accepted use of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) technology as a good alternative for the treatment of patients with advanced heart failure together with the improved survival of the LVAD‐supported patients on the device and the scarcity of donor hearts has significantly increased the population of LVAD‐supported patients. The expected and non‐expected device‐related and patient–device interaction complications impose a significant burden on the medical system exceeding the capacity of the LVAD implanting centres. The ageing of the LVAD‐supported patients, mainly those supported with the ‘destination therapy’ indication, increases the risk for those patients to experience comorbidities common in the older population. The probability of an LVAD‐supported patient presenting with medical emergency to a local emergency department, internal, or surgical ward of a non‐LVAD implanting centre is increasing. The purpose of this trilogy is to supply the immediate tools needed by the non‐LVAD specialized physician: ambulance clinicians, emergency ward physicians, general cardiologists, internists, anaesthesiologists, and surgeons, to comply with the medical needs of this fast‐growing population of LVAD‐supported patients. The different issues discussed will follow the patient's pathway from the ambulance to the emergency department and from the emergency department to the internal or surgical wards and eventually to the discharge home from the hospital back to the general practitioner. In this first part of the trilogy on the management of LVAD‐supported patients for the non‐LVAD specialist healthcare provider, after the introduction on the assist devices technology in general, definitions and structured approach to the assessment of the LVAD‐supported patient in the ambulance and emergency department is presented including cardiopulmonary resuscitation for LVAD‐supported patients.

Impact of Shared Care in Remote Areas for Patients With Left Ventricular Assist Devices

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a shared-care model on outcomes in patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) living in remote locations.

BACKGROUND

Health care delivery through shared-care models has been shown to improve outcomes in patients with chronic diseases. However, the impact of shared-care models on outcomes in patients with LVAD is unknown.

METHODS

LVAD recipients in the authors' program (2007 to 2018) were classified based on the levels of care provided and training and resources used: level 1, was defined as outpatient primary care without LVAD-specific care; level 2 was level 1 services and outpatient LVAD-specific care; level 3 was level 2 services and inpatient LVAD-specific care and implantation center (IC). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare rates of survival, bleeding, pump thrombosis, infection, neurologic events, and readmissions among levels of care.

RESULTS

A total of 336 patients were included, with 255 patients (75.9%) cared for in shared-care facilities. Median follow-up was 810 (interquartile range: 321 to 1,096) days. In comparison to patients cared for by IC, patients at levels 2 and 3 shared-care centers had similar rates of death, bleeding, neurologic events, pump thromboses, and infections. However, the rates of death, pump thromboses, and infections were higher for level 1 patients than in IC patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Shared health care is an effective strategy to deliver care to patients with LVAD living in remote locations. However, patients in shared-care facilities unable to provide LVAD-specific care are at higher risk of unfavorable outcomes. Availability of LVAD-specific care should be strongly considered during patient selection and every effort made to ensure LVAD-specific training and resources are available at shared-care facilities.

Technology-enabled activation of skin cancer screening for hematopoietic cell transplantation survivors and their primary care providers (TEACH)

BACKGROUND

Hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is a curative option for a growing number of patients with hematologic diseases and malignancies. However, HCT-related factors, such as total body irradiation used for conditioning, graft-versus-host disease, and prolonged exposure to immunosuppressive therapy, result in very high risk for melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC). In fact, skin cancer is the most common subsequent neoplasm in HCT survivors, tending to develop at a time when survivors' follow-up care has largely transitioned to the primary care setting. The goal of this study is to increase skin cancer screening rates among HCT survivors through patient-directed activation alone or in combination with physician-directed activation. The proposed intervention will identify facilitators of and barriers to risk-based screening in this population and help reduce the burden of cancer-related morbidity after HCT.

METHODS/DESIGN

720 HCT survivors will be enrolled in this 12-month randomized controlled trial. This study uses a comparative effectiveness design comparing (1) patient activation and education (PAE, N = 360) including text messaging and print materials to encourage and motivate skin examinations; (2) PAE plus primary care physician activation (PAE + Phys, N = 360) adding print materials for the physician on the HCT survivors' increased risk of skin cancer and importance of conducting a full-body skin exam. Patients on the PAE + Phys arm will be further randomized 1:1 to the teledermoscopy (PAE + Phys+TD) adding physician receipt of a portable dermatoscope to upload images of suspect lesions for review by the study dermatologist and an online course with descriptions of dermoscopic images for skin cancers.

DISCUSSION

When completed, this study will provide much-needed information regarding strategies to improve skin cancer detection in other high-risk (e.g. radiation-exposed) cancer survivor populations, and to facilitate screening and management of other late effects (e.g. cardiovascular, endocrine) in HCT survivors.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04358276 . Registered 24 April 2020.

Shared care across the interface between primary and specialty care in management of long term conditions

BACKGROUND

Shared care has been used in the management of many chronic conditions with the assumption that it delivers better care than primary or specialty care alone; however, little is known about the effectiveness of shared care.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of shared care health service interventions designed to improve the management of chronic disease across the primary/specialty care interface. This is an update of a previously published review.Secondary questions include the following:1. Which shared care interventions or portions of shared care interventions are most effective?2. What do the most effective systems have in common?

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library to 12 October 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

One review author performed the initial abstract screen; then two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion. We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials (NRCTs), controlled before-after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series analyses (ITS) evaluating the effectiveness of shared care interventions for people with chronic conditions in primary care and community settings. The intervention was compared with usual care in that setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies, evaluated study quality and judged the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We conducted a meta-analysis of results when possible and carried out a narrative synthesis of the remainder of the results. We presented the results in a 'Summary of findings' table, using a tabular format to show effect sizes for all outcome types.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 42 studies of shared care interventions for chronic disease management (N = 18,859), 39 of which were RCTs, two CBAs and one an NRCT. Of these 42 studies, 41 examined complex multi-faceted interventions and lasted from six to 24 months. Overall, our confidence in results regarding the effectiveness of interventions ranged from moderate to high certainty. Results showed probably few or no differences in clinical outcomes overall with a tendency towards improved blood pressure management in the small number of studies on shared care for hypertension, chronic kidney disease and stroke (mean difference (MD) 3.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.68 to 5.25)(based on moderate-certainty evidence). Mental health outcomes improved, particularly in response to depression treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22 to 1.62; six studies, N = 1708) and recovery from depression (RR 2.59, 95% CI 1.57 to 4.26; 10 studies, N = 4482) in studies examining the 'stepped care' design of shared care interventions (based on high-certainty evidence). Investigators noted modest effects on mean depression scores (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.29, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.20; six studies, N = 3250). Differences in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), processes of care and participation and default rates in shared care services were probably limited (based on moderate-certainty evidence). Studies probably showed little or no difference in hospital admissions, service utilisation and patient health behaviours (with evidence of moderate certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests that shared care improves depression outcomes and probably has mixed or limited effects on other outcomes. Methodological shortcomings, particularly inadequate length of follow-up, may account in part for these limited effects. Review findings support the growing evidence base for shared care in the management of depression, particularly stepped care models of shared care. Shared care interventions for other conditions should be developed within research settings, with account taken of the complexity of such interventions and awareness of the need to carry out longer studies to test effectiveness and sustainability over time.

[VKA anticoagulant bridging for an invasive procedure or planned surgery: A survey of practices in general practitioners]

BACKGROUND

In 2011, 1.7 % of the French population was receiving a Vitamine K Antagonist (VKA) anticoagulant therapy. VKA related adverse events are the first cause for iatrogenic events in France. Anticoagulant bridging period is a period at both increased risk for thromboembolic and bleeding events. The Haute Autorité de santé (HAS) established in 2008 recommendations in order to help physicians to manage anticoagulant therapy in case of invasive procedure or surgery, according to the procedure and the indication of VKA.

PRIMARY AIM

To assess anticoagulant treatment management by general physicians when an invasive procedure or a planned surgery in a patient receiving long-term VKA Data have been compared to HAS recommendations.

METHODS

A descriptive transversal survey performed in general physicians à at the conference held in Nice in 2012. An anonymous questionnaire was built, including questions about clinical situations and knowledge questions.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight out of 200 submitted questionnaires have been completed (44%). Overall, 4.5% of questioned physicians have managed fully in accordance with HAS recommendations the 6 clinical situations cliniques about patients receiving long-term VKA for atrial fibrillation, recurrent pulmonary embolism, and mechanical valvular prothesis. Bridgings using Low Molecular Weight Heparins have been excessively proposed by asked physicians and bridging prescription was most of the time wrong (9% correct). Otherwise, no physician has answered correctly all theoretical questions; patients at high and low thromboembolic risk are not well distinguished; 64% of physicians think they are influenced by specialists who have prescribed the procedure.

DISCUSSION

Few physicians manage VKA therapy in accordance with HAS recommendations in case of invasive procedure. There are many hypotheses: bad knowledge of recommendations, overestimation of the thromboembolic risk related to VKA stopping during the period of the invasive procedure, underestimation of the risk of bleeding related to the bridging period of time; influence of specialists. We propose a decisional algorithm in order to improve the implementation of HAS recommendations in usual care.

Precision and accuracy of point-of-care testing coagulometers used for self-testing and self-management of oral anticoagulation therapy

BACKGROUND

Oral anticoagulation therapy is monitored by the use of the International Normalized Ratio (INR). Patients who perform self-testing or self-management use a point-of-care testing (POCT) coagulometer (INR monitor) to estimate their INRs. A precondition for a correct dosage of coumarins is a correct INR estimation, and the method and apparatus used for providing the INR measurements are crucial in this context. Several studies have been published regarding the precision and accuracy of these POCT coagulometers, and have led to diverse conclusions. It is difficult and challenging to perform an overview of the literature, owing to the vast amount of papers, with differences in design, statistical analysis, etc.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review was to analyze the current literature, especially regarding the precision and accuracy of the POCT coagulometers, to provide recommendations for clinical use and quality control, and to point out areas for future research.

METHODS

We included a total of 22 studies, of which four were characterized as high-quality studies.

RESULTS

The precision of the POCT coagulometers was generally adequate for clinical use. Their performance in terms of accuracy has to be viewed in the context of the inherent inaccuracies of INR measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy of POCT coagulometers seems, in this respect, to be generally acceptable, and they can be used in a clinical setting.

The primary care nurse practitioner and cancer survivorship care

PURPOSE

To examine the important role that primary care nurse practitioners (NPs) have in providing long-term surveillance and health maintenance for breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer survivors throughout the continuum of cancer care.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, CINAHL, MD-Consult, and Cochrane's databases were utilized with the inclusion of primary research and critical research reviews from January 1995 through March 2008. Select organizational websites were also cited.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer patients experience changes in the focus of their care when management shifts from the treatment of cancer to management of treatment side effects and outcomes, to survivorship care, and to secondary cancer treatment. NPs have a strong impact on cancer survivorship care by serving in various roles and settings throughout the cancer trajectory to improve patient outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Cancer survivorship care expands beyond specialty settings, into primary care. NPs have a key role in ensuring continuity of care for patients with cancer. Models of care that promote continuity and high quality of care for patients with cancer include the shared-care and nurse-managed health center models. The formal collaborative plan of care is essential in long-term cancer survivorship care.

Effect of setting, monitoring intensity and patient experience on anticoagulation control: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the relationship between time spent in the recommended target International Normalised Ratio (INR) range and the setting and intensity of anti coagulant monitoring, in both treatment-experienced and treatment-naive atrial fibrillation (AF) patients receiving oral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy for the prevention of ischaemic stroke.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Systematic review of published studies on participants with atrial fibrillation on anticoagulation therapy. We compared frequent monitoring (well-controlled, according to a strict protocol) versus infrequent monitoring (frequency representative of routine clinical practice), specialised care versus usual care, and naive versus prior anticoagulant use. Meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model.

RESULTS

36 studies were included, 22 (primary data) of AF patients managed in line with the consensus guidelines target INR range of 2.0-3.0, and 14 studies (secondary data) of mixed patient groups, including AF, with an INR target of 2.0-3.5. Both data sets were combined for sensitivity analysis. Pooled mean time in INR range was 59.1% (95% CI: 55.5, 62.8%) and 64.3% (95% CI: 60.5, 68.0%) for infrequent monitoring and frequent monitoring, respectively. Significantly more time was spent in range in specialist care settings compared to usual care: +11.3% (95% CI: 0.1-21.7%). Naive OAC users spent less time in range 56.5% (95% CI: 45.5-67.5%) than existing users 61.2% (95% CI: 57.2-65.2%). All of these differences were found to be significant in the sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

INR control is variable and dependent on monitoring intensity and duration of anticoagulant therapy.

[A systematic review of therapy coordination between primary and specialist care]

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate existing information on questions of therapy coordination between primary and hospital care and to identify activities with positive results that could be adapted at the local level.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, SIETES, and Cochrane systematic review databases were searched for articles published between January 1990 and August 2005.

SELECTION OF STUDIES

Those conducted in countries with a National Health Service. Thirty-six studies were included: a) observational studies on drug prescription for patients moving between primary and specialist care (18 studies); b) studies of the views of health professionals: review and consensus articles and editorials (7 articles); qualitative studies (4 articles); c) intervention studies (7 studies). Four-hundred and thirty-one studies were excluded.

RESULTS

The most common problems were: lack of information for patient follow-up, disagreement in drug selection, increases in costs due to hospital stays and difficulties in assuming clinical responsibilities. The solution put forward was that a unified policy of common medicines and budgets is essential. Little information was available on the studies that posed or evaluated interventions to improve therapy coordination. Conditions with the most information available were heart failure, diabetes mellitus, asthma, high blood pressure, and anticoagulant treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The creation of pharmacotherapy committees, involving professionals belonging to both primary and specialist care, was proposed. These committees would adapt for local use protocols and clinical practice guidelines, in line with the prescription quality standards of primary care.

Effectiveness of shared care across the interface between primary and specialty care in chronic disease management

BACKGROUND

Shared care has been used in the management of many chronic conditions with the assumption that it delivers better care than either primary or specialty care alone. It has been defined as the joint participation of primary care physicians and specialty care physicians in the planned delivery of care, informed by an enhanced information exchange over and above routine discharge and referral notices. It has the potential to offer improved quality and coordination of care delivery across the primary-specialty care interface and to improve outcomes for patients.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of shared-care health service interventions designed to improve the management of chronic disease across the primary-specialty care interface.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) Specialised Register (and the database of studies awaiting assessment); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE); MEDLINE (from 1966); EMBASE (from 1980) and CINAHL (from 1982). We also searched the reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series analyses of shared-care interventions for chronic disease management. The participants were primary care providers, specialty care providers and patients. The outcomes included physical health outcomes, mental health outcomes, and psychosocial health outcomes, treatment satisfaction, measures of care delivery including participation in services, delivery of care and prescribing of appropriate medications, and costs of shared care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data and assessed study quality.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty studies of shared care interventions for chronic disease management were identified, 19 of which were randomised controlled trials. The majority of studies examined complex multifaceted interventions and were of relatively short duration. The results were mixed. Overall there were no consistent improvements in physical or mental health outcomes, psychosocial outcomes, psychosocial measures including measures of disability and functioning, hospital admissions, default or participation rates, recording of risk factors and satisfaction with treatment. However, there were clear improvements in prescribing in the studies that considered this outcome. The methodological quality of studies varied considerably with only a minority of studies of high-quality design. Cost data were limited and difficult to interpret across studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review indicates that there is, at present, insufficient evidence to demonstrate significant benefits from shared care apart from improved prescribing. Methodological shortcomings, particularly inadequate length of follow-up, may partially account for this lack of evidence. This review indicates that there is no evidence to support the widespread introduction of shared care services at present. Future shared-care interventions should only be developed within research settings and with account taken of the complexity of such interventions and the need to carry out longer studies to test the effectiveness and sustainability of shared care over time.

Frequency of adverse events in patients with poor anticoagulation: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients taking anticoagulants orally over the long term have international normalized ratios (INRs) outside the individual therapeutic range more than one-third of the time. Improved anticoagulation control will reduce hemorrhagic and thromboembolic event rates. To gauge the potential effect of improved anticoagulation control, we undertook to determine the proportion of anticoagulant-associated events that occur when INRs are outside the therapeutic range.

METHODS

We conducted a meta-analysis of all studies that assigned hemorrhagic and thromboembolic events in patients taking anticoagulants to discrete INR ranges. We identified studies using the MEDLINE (1966-2006) and EMBASE (1980-2006) databases. We included studies reported in English if the majority of patients taking oral anticoagulants had an INR range with a lower limit between 1.8 and 2 and an upper limit between 3 and 3.5, and their INR at the time of the hemorrhagic or thromboembolic event was recorded.

RESULTS

The final analysis included results from 45 studies (23 that reported both hemorrhages and thromboemboli; 14 that reported hemorrhages only; and 8, thromboemboli only) involving a median of 208 patients (limits of interquartile range [25th-75th percentile] 131-523 subjects; total n = 71 065). Of these studies, 64% were conducted at community practices; the remainder, at anticoagulation clinics. About 69% of the studies were classed as having moderate or high quality. Overall, 44% (95% confidence interval [CI] 39%-49%) of hemorrhages occurred when INRs were above the therapeutic range, and 48% (95% CI 41%-55%) of thromboemboli took place when below it. The mean proportion of events that occurred while the patient's INR was outside the therapeutic range was greater for studies with a short mean follow-up (< 1 yr). Between-study heterogeneity was significant (p < 0.001).

INTERPRETATION

Improved anticoagulation control could decrease the likelihood of almost half of all anticoagulant-associated adverse events.

Models for delivering survivorship care

Survivors of adult cancer face lifetime health risks that are dependent on their cancer, cancer treatment exposures, comorbid health conditions, genetic predispositions, and lifestyle behaviors. Content, intensity, and frequency of health care that addresses these risks vary from survivor to survivor. The aims of this article are to provide a rationale for survivor health care and to articulate a taxonomy of models of survivor care that is applicable to both community practices and academic institutions.

Self-management versus conventional management of oral anticoagulant therapy: A randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of self-managed oral anticoagulant therapy has been addressed in few randomized, controlled trials, which have provided inconsistent results. The aim of this study was to compare the quality of self-managed oral anticoagulant therapy with conventional management.

METHODS

This was a pragmatic, open-label, randomized, controlled trial where 100 patients receiving long-term oral anticoagulant therapy referred to a Danish clinic for self-management was randomized to either self-management of oral anticoagulant therapy (including a teaching program of self-management followed by 6 months of self-management) or 6 months of conventional management. The primary endpoint was an intention-to-treat analysis of a composite score combining the variance (median square of the standard deviation) of the International Normalized Ratio (INR) value (using a blinded control sample analyzed monthly by a reference laboratory), death, major complications, or discontinuation from the study. Secondary endpoints - assessed in per-protocol analyses - were the variance of the INR value (using the blinded control sample) and time within therapeutic INR target range using the standard INR values from the coagulometer and laboratory measurement.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint between the self-management and conventional management groups (composite score 0.16 vs. 0.24, respectively, p=0.09). Self-management was significantly better (0.16 vs. 0.24, p=0.003) with regard to the variance in a per-protocol analysis. The difference in time within therapeutic INR target range was not significantly better (78.7% vs. 68.9%, p=0.14) using self-management.

CONCLUSION

The quality of self-management of oral anticoagulant therapy is at least as good as that provided by conventional management.

Effect of Study Setting on Anticoagulation Control

BACKGROUND

For patients receiving therapy with oral anticoagulants (OACs), the proportion of time spent in the therapeutic range (ie, anticoagulation control) is strongly associated with bleeding and thromboembolic risk. The effect of study-level factors, especially study setting, on anticoagulation control is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

Describe anticoagulation control achieved in the published literature. We also used metaregressive techniques to determine which study-level factors significantly influenced anticoagulation control.

STUDIES

All published randomized or cohort studies that measured international normalized ratios (INRs) serially in anticoagulated patients and reported the proportion of time between INRs ranging from 1.8 to 2.0 and 3.0 to 3.5.

RESULTS

We identified 67 studies with 123 patient groups having 50,208 patients followed for a total of 57,154.7 patient-years. A total of 68.3% of groups were from anticoagulation clinics, 7.3% were from clinical trials, and 24.4% were from community practices. Overall, patients were therapeutic 63.6% of time (95% confidence interval [CI], 61.6 to 65.6). In the metaregression model, study setting had the greatest effect on anticoagulation control with studies in community practices having significantly lower control than either anticoagulation clinics or clinical trials (-12.2%; 95% CI, -19.5 to -4.8; p < 0.0001). Self-management was associated with a significant improvement of time spent in the therapeutic range (+7.0%; 95% CI, 0.7 to 13.3; p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who have received anticoagulation therapy spend a significant proportion of their time with an INR out of the therapeutic range. Patients from community practices showed significantly worse anticoagulation control than those from anticoagulation clinics or clinical trials. This should be considered when interpreting the results of, and generalizing from, studies involving OACs.