Do telehealth interventions improve oral anticoagulation management? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Tóm tắt
The benefits and harms of telehealth interventions compared to usual care for oral anticoagulation management are unclear. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess their impact on clinically important outcomes. A search was conducted through MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases, and the retrieved citations were independently screened and extracted by two review authors. Cochrane Collaboration-recommended tools were used to assess for risk of bias. Co-primary outcomes were major bleeding and major thromboembolic events. Of 2145 retrieved citations, 7 were included for qualitative synthesis (1 randomized controlled trial, 1 prospective cohort and 5 retrospective cohorts). None addressed direct oral anticoagulants. Telehealth interventions were mainly consisted of telephone visits by clinicians, pharmacists and specialists. Meta-analysis of 3 studies (n = 6955) showed significant improvements in the telehealth group for major thromboembolic events (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.25–0.74, p = 0.002), but no significant difference for major bleeding events (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.52–1.33, p = 0.44). There was no significant difference in any of the secondary outcomes. The overall GRADE quality of evidence was rated very low due to high risk of bias and low precision. Based on very low quality evidence, telehealth interventions may lower the risk of major thromboembolic events, but not other clinically important outcomes. A high quality study is likely to strongly influence these results. High quality randomized trials are recommended to better assess the benefits and harms of telehealth interventions for anticoagulation management.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Holbrook A et al (2012) Evidence-based management of anticoagulant therapy. Chest 141(2):e152S–e184S
Ghanny S, Crowther M (2013) Treatment with novel oral anticoagulants: indications, efficacy and risks. Curr Opin Hematol 20(5):430–436
Bayoumi I et al (2014) Medication-related emergency department visits and hospitalizations among older adults. Can Fam Physician 60(4):e217–e222
Tamayo Aguirre E et al (2016) Oral anticoagulation with vitamin K inhibitors and determinants of successful self-management in primary care. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 16(1):180
Dorsey ER, Topol EJ (2016) State of telehealth. N Engl J Med 375(2):154–161
Heneghan CJ et al (2016) Self-monitoring and self-management of oral anticoagulation, in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Wiley, Hoboken
Flodgren G et al (2015) Interactive telemedicine: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes, in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Wiley, Hoboken
Totten A, Womack DM, Eden KB, McDonagh MS, Griffin JC, Grusing S, Hersh WR (2016) Telehealth: mapping the evidence for patient outcomes from systematic reviews. Technical Brief No. 26, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville
McLean S et al (2013) The impact of telehealthcare on the quality and safety of care: a systematic overview. PLoS ONE 8(8):e71238
Moher D et al (2015) Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
Schmitt L, Speckman J, Ansell J (2003) Quality assessment of anticoagulation dose management: comparative evaluation of measures of time-in-therapeutic range. J Thromb Thrombolysis 15:213–216
(EPOC), Cochrane EPOC Data Collection Form. EPOC Resources for review authors 2013 [cited 2017, 20 June]; Available from http://epoc.cochrane.org/epoc-resources-review-authors
Higgins JPT et al (2011) The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343(oct18 2):d5928–d5928
Higgins JPT, Green S Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. 2011 [cited 2017 June]; Available from http://handbook.cochrane.org
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist EV, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, Schunemann HJ (2008) GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 336:924
Review Manager (RevMan) (2014), The Cochrane Collaboration: Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre
Staresinic AG et al (2006) Comparison of outcomes using 2 delivery models of anticoagulation care. Arch Intern Med 166(9):997–1006
Keller K et al (2015) Clinical outcome of patients with venous thromboembolism under oral anticoagulation in regular medical care versus a telemedicine-based anticoagulation clinic. Eur Heart J 36:861
Blissit KT, Mullenix ML, Brittain KG (2015) Evaluation of time in therapeutic range on Warfarin therapy between face-to-face and telephone follow-up in a VA Medical Center. J Pharm Technol 31(2):78–83
Gubensek M, Mavri A (2009) Quality of telephone-based management of oral anticoagulation treatment. J Thromb Haemost 7(S2):454–455
Stoudenmire LG, De Remer CE, Elewa H (2014) Telephone versus office-based management of warfarin: impact on international normalized ratios and outcomes. Am J Hematol 89(6):E6
Witt DM et al (2005) Effect of a centralized clinical pharmacy anticoagulation service on the outcomes of anticoagulation therapy. Chest 127(5):1515–1522
Wittkowsky AK et al (2006) Outcomes of oral anticoagulant therapy managed by telephone vs in office visits in an anticoagulation clinic setting. Chest 130(5):1385–1389
Ekeland AG, Bowes A, Flottorp S (2010) Effectiveness of telemedicine: a systematic review of reviews. Int J Med Inform 79(11):736–771
OTN. OHIP Billing Information for Telemedicine Services. (2011) [cited 2017 July 12]; Available from https://support.otn.ca/sites/default/files/ohip_telemedicine_billing_information_manual.pdf
Dinesen B et al (2016) Personalized telehealth in the future: a global research Agenda. J Med Internet Res 18(3):e53
Hjelm N (2005) Benefits and drawbacks of telemedicine. J Telemed Telecare 11(2):60–70