Efficacy and safety of app-based remote warfarin management during COVID-19-related lockdown: a retrospective cohort study
Abstract
This study aimed to explore the effectiveness, and safety of internet-based warfarin management during the pandemic. In this single-center retrospective cohort study, we compared the safety and efficacy of online warfarin management using a smartphone app (the Alfalfa app) versus conventional outpatient clinic management from January 1, 2020 to March 31, 2020. Patients in the online management group used the Alfalfa app to communicate coagulation test results and other relevant information to a doctor or clinical pharmacist, who then responded with the dose adjustment plan and the date of the next blood test. The outcomes examined were the time in therapeutic range (TTR), incidence of clinical events (i.e., bleeding events, thrombotic events, warfarin-related emergency department visits, and warfarin-related hospital admissions), and the distribution of international normalized ratio (INR) values. Data from 117 patients were analyzed in this study. TTR was significantly higher in the online group than in the offline group (61.0% vs. 39.6%, P < 0.01). Incidence of major bleeding events, thrombotic events, and warfarin-related hospital admissions were comparable between the online and offline groups. However, minor bleeds (5.3% vs. 28.3%, P < 0.01) and warfarin-related emergency department visits (1.8% vs. 23.3%, P = 0.02) were significantly fewer in the online group than in the offline group. The proportion of INR values in the therapeutic range (53.8% vs. 40.1%, P < 0.01)…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 117 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Safety and efficacy of COVID‐19 vaccines: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of controlled and randomized clinical trials
- Accuracy Comparison between Robot-Assisted Dental Implant Placement and Static/Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies
- Determinants of passive antibody efficacy in SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Cleaning efficacy of EDDY versus ultrasonically-activated irrigation in root canals: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Bonding Efficacy of Universal Resin Adhesives to Zirconia Substrates: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- In vitro antimicrobial activity of extracts and essential oils of Cinnamomum, Salvia, and Mentha spp. against foodborne pathogens: A meta-analysis study
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.