Literature DB >> 23015161

Randomised comparison of a simple warfarin dosing algorithm versus a computerised anticoagulation management system for control of warfarin maintenance therapy.

Robby Nieuwlaat1, Lowiek M Hubers, Alex C Spyropoulos, John W Eikelboom, Benjamin J Connolly, Harriette G C Van Spall, Karleen M Schulze, Spencer M Cuddy, Alexander C Stehouwer, Sam Schulman, Stuart J Connolly.   

Abstract

Excellent control of the international normalised ratio (INR) is associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients receiving warfarin, and can be achieved by anticoagulation clinics but is difficult in general practice. Anticoagulation clinics have often used validated commercial computer systems to manage the INR, but these are not usually available to general practitioners. It was the objective of this study to perform a randomised trial of a simple one-step warfarin dosing algorithm against a widely used computerised dosing system. During the period of introduction of a commercial computerised warfarin dosing system (DAWN AC) to an anticoagulation clinic, patients were randomised to have warfarin dose adjustment done according to recommendations of the existing warfarin dosing algorithm or to those of the computerised system. The study tested if the computerised system was non-inferior to the existing algorithm for the primary outcome of time in therapeutic INR range of 2.0-3.0 (TTR), with a one-sided non-inferiority margin of 4.5%. There were 541 patients randomised to commercial computerised system and 527 to the algorithm. Median follow-up was 159 days. A dose recommendation was provided and followed in 91% of occasions for the computerised system and in 90% for the algorithm (p=0.03). The mean TTR was 71.0% (standard deviation [SD] 23.2) for the computerised system and 71.9% (SD 22.9) for the algorithm (difference 0.9% [95% confidence interval: -1.4% to 4.1%]; p-value for non-inferiority=0.002; p-value for superiority=0.34). In conclusion, similar maintenance control of the INR was achieved with a simple one-step dosing algorithm and a commercial computerised management system.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23015161     DOI: 10.1160/TH12-06-0433

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Thromb Haemost        ISSN: 0340-6245            Impact factor:   5.249


  6 in total

Review 1.  Optimizing quality care for the oral vitamin K antagonists (VKAs).

Authors:  Vittorio Pengo; Gentian Denas
Journal:  Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program       Date:  2018-11-30

2.  Effects of anticoagulation provider continuity on time in therapeutic range for warfarin patients.

Authors:  Martin A Bishop; Michael B Streiff
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 2.300

3.  Cluster randomized controlled trial of a simple warfarin maintenance dosing algorithm versus usual care among primary care practices.

Authors:  Robby Nieuwlaat; John W Eikelboom; Sam Schulman; Harriette G C van Spall; Karleen M Schulze; Benjamin J Connolly; Spencer M Cuddy; Lowiek M Hubers; Alexander C Stehouwer; Stuart J Connolly
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 2.300

Review 4.  The effects of on-screen, point of care computer reminders on processes and outcomes of care.

Authors:  Kaveh G Shojania; Alison Jennings; Alain Mayhew; Craig R Ramsay; Martin P Eccles; Jeremy Grimshaw
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2009-07-08

5.  An audit of anticoagulant management to assess anticoagulant control using decision support software.

Authors:  Paul Harper; Joe Harper; Claire Hill
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2014-09-02       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 6.  Guidance for the practical management of warfarin therapy in the treatment of venous thromboembolism.

Authors:  Daniel M Witt; Nathan P Clark; Scott Kaatz; Terri Schnurr; Jack E Ansell
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 2.300

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.