Home medicines reviews in Australian war veterans taking warfarin do not influence international normalised ratio control

Pharmacist-participated medication review in different practice settings: Service or intervention? An overview of systematic reviews

Introduction

Medication review (MR) is a pharmacy practice conducted in different settings that has a positive impact on patient health outcomes. In this context, systematic reviews on MR have restricted the assessment of this practice using criteria such as methodological quality, practice settings, and patient outcomes. Therefore, expanding research on this subject is necessary to facilitate the understanding of the effectiveness of MR and the comparison of its results.

Aim

To examine the panorama of systematic reviews on pharmacist-participated MR in different practice settings.

Methods

A literature search was undertaken in Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde (BVS), Embase, PubMed, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases through January 2018 using keywords for "medication review", "systematic review", and "pharmacist". Two independents investigators screened titles, abstracts, full texts; assessed methodological quality; and, extracted data from the included reviews.

Results

Seventeen systematic reviews were included, of which sixteen presented low to moderate methodological quality. Most of reviews were conducted in Europe (n = 7), included controlled primary studies (n = 16), elderly patients (n = 9), and long-term care facilities (n = 8). Seven reviews addressed MR as an intervention and thirteen reviews cited collaboration between physicians and pharmacists in the practice of MR. In addition, thirteen terminologies for MR were used and the main objective was to identify and solve drug-related problems and/or optimize the drug use (n = 11).

Conclusion

There is considerable heterogeneity in practice settings, population, definitions, terminologies, and approach of MR as well as poor description of patient care process in the systematic reviews. These facts may limit the comparison, summarization and understanding of the results of MR. Furthermore, the methodological quality of most systematic reviews was below ideal. Thus, international agreement on the MR process is necessary to assess, compare and optimize the quality of care provided.

Dedicated warfarin care programme results in superior warfarin control in Queensland, Australia

BACKGROUND

Warfarin is used to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Ongoing monitoring of International normalised ratio (INR) and time in therapeutic range (TTR) commonly used to assess the quality of warfarin management are required. Anticoagulant clinics have demonstrated improved TTRs, particularly in countries with poorer control in primary care settings. Reported TTR in Australia has been relatively high; so, it is unknown if benefit would be seen from dedicated warfarin clinics in Australia. The aim of this study was to compare the level of warfarin control in patients managed by their general practitioner (GP) and a warfarin care programme (WCP) by Sullivan Nicolaides Pathology.

METHOD

Retrospective data were collected for AF patients enrolled in the warfarin care programme at WCP, and included patients with INR tests available while managed by their GP. INR tests were used to calculate TTR and frequency of testing for the time managed by GP and WCP, with mean data used for analysis and comparison.

RESULTS

The eligible 200 warfarin patients had a TTR of 69% with GP management and 82% with WCP management (<.0001). Significant differences were also found between GP and WCP management in the percentage of tests in range, total number of tests and frequency of testing. WCP had a reduced time to repeat test at extremes of INR results.

CONCLUSION

Australian warfarin control was good when managed by either GP or WCP, but WCP management increased TTR by 13%. Dedicated warfarin programmes can improve warfarin control and optimise therapy for patients.