Annals of Pharmacotherapy, Ahead of Print.
Background:Effectiveness of anticoagulation services managed via telepharmacy (TP) has not been clearly demonstrated.Objective:This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the effectiveness of TP anticoagulation services to face-to-face (FTF) anticoagulation services in the ambulatory care setting.Methods:A literature search for studies assessing the effectiveness of TP services was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central databases, from inception through November 18, 2020. Studies that compared TP with FTF anticoagulation services in the ambulatory care setting were included. Outcomes of interest included thromboembolic events, major bleeding, minor bleeding, any bleeding, warfarin international normalized ratio (INR) time in therapeutic range (TTR), frequency of extreme INR, anticoagulation-related emergency department visits, anticoagulation-related hospitalization, any hospitalization, and mortality. Relative risk (RR) and weighted mean difference were calculated using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model.Results:Overall, 11 studies involving 8395 patients were included in the systematic review, and 9 studies were included in the pooled meta-analysis. Compared with FTF service, TP was associated with a lower risk of any bleeding and any hospitalization, with RRs of 0.65 (95% CI = 0.47 to 0.90; P = 0.01) and 0.59 (95% CI = 0.39 to 0.87; P = 0.01), respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in TTR or the risk of extreme supratherapeutic INR, major bleeding, minor bleeding, or thromboembolic events between the 2 groups.Conclusions:TP appears to be at least as effective as FTF anticoagulation services. Findings from this study support the utilization of TP practice models in ambulatory care anticoagulation management.
Background:Effectiveness of anticoagulation services managed via telepharmacy (TP) has not been clearly demonstrated.Objective:This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the effectiveness of TP anticoagulation services to face-to-face (FTF) anticoagulation services in the ambulatory care setting.Methods:A literature search for studies assessing the effectiveness of TP services was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central databases, from inception through November 18, 2020. Studies that compared TP with FTF anticoagulation services in the ambulatory care setting were included. Outcomes of interest included thromboembolic events, major bleeding, minor bleeding, any bleeding, warfarin international normalized ratio (INR) time in therapeutic range (TTR), frequency of extreme INR, anticoagulation-related emergency department visits, anticoagulation-related hospitalization, any hospitalization, and mortality. Relative risk (RR) and weighted mean difference were calculated using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model.Results:Overall, 11 studies involving 8395 patients were included in the systematic review, and 9 studies were included in the pooled meta-analysis. Compared with FTF service, TP was associated with a lower risk of any bleeding and any hospitalization, with RRs of 0.65 (95% CI = 0.47 to 0.90; P = 0.01) and 0.59 (95% CI = 0.39 to 0.87; P = 0.01), respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in TTR or the risk of extreme supratherapeutic INR, major bleeding, minor bleeding, or thromboembolic events between the 2 groups.Conclusions:TP appears to be at least as effective as FTF anticoagulation services. Findings from this study support the utilization of TP practice models in ambulatory care anticoagulation management.
