AIM: To determine TTR and the predictors of poor TTR among atrial fibrillation patients who receive warfarin therapy.
METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted at a cardiology referral center in Selangor, Malaysia. A total of 420 patients with atrial fibrillation and under follow-up at the pharmacist led Warfarin Medication Therapeutic Adherence Clinic between January 2014 and December 2018 were included. Patients' clinical data, information related to warfarin therapy, and INR readings were traced through electronic Hospital Information system. A data collection form was used for data collection. The percentage of days when INR was within range was calculated using the Rosendaal method. The poor INR control category was defined as a TTR < 60%. Predictors for poor TTR were further determined by using logistic regression.
RESULTS: A total of 420 patients [54.0% male; mean age 65.7 (10.9) years] were included. The calculated mean and median TTR were 60.6% ± 20.6% and 64% (interquartile range 48%-75%), respectively. Of the included patients, 57.6% (n = 242) were in the good control category and 42.4% (n = 178) were in the poor control category. The annual calculated mean TTR between the year 2014 and 2018 ranged from 59.7% and 67.3%. A high HAS-BLED score of ≥ 3 was associated with poor TTR (adjusted odds ratio, 2.525; 95% confidence interval: 1.6-3.9, P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: In our population, a high HAS-BLED score was associated with poor TTR. This could provide an important insight when initiating an oral anticoagulant for these patients. Patients with a high HAS-BLED score may obtain less benefit from warfarin therapy and should be considered for other available oral anticoagulants for maximum benefit.
OBJECTIVE: With the growing body of evidence supporting the use of eHealth interventions, the intention is to conduct a meta-analysis on various health outcomes of eHealth interventions among ischaemic heart disease (IHD) patients.
METHODS: Based on PRISMA guidelines, eligible studies were searched through databases of Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, EBSCOHost, and SAGE (PROSPERO registration CRD42021290091). Inclusion criteria were English language and randomised controlled trials published between 2011 to 2021 exploring health outcomes that empower IHD patients with eHealth interventions. RevMan 5.4 was utilised for meta-analysis, sensitivity analysis, and risk of bias (RoB) assessment while GRADE software for generating findings of physical health outcomes. Non-physical health outcomes were analysed using SWiM (synthesis without meta-analysis) method.
RESULTS: This review included 10 studies, whereby, six studies with 895 participants' data were pooled for physical health outcomes. Overall, the RoB varied significantly across domains, with the majority was low risks, a substantial proportion of high risks and a sizeable proportion of unclear. With GRADE evidence of moderate to high quality, eHealth interventions improved low density lipoprotien (LDL) levels in IHD patients when compared to usual care after 12 months of interventions (SMD -0.26, 95% CI [-0.45, -0.06], I2 = 0%, p = 0.01). Significance appraisal in each domain of the non-physical health outcomes found significant findings for medication adherence, physical activity and dietary behaviour, while half of the non-significant findings were found for other behavioural outcomes, psychological and quality of life.
CONCLUSIONS: Electronic Health interventions are found effective at lowering LDL cholesterol in long-term but benefits remain inconclusive for other physical and non-physical health outcomes for IHD patients. Integrating sustainable patient empowerment strategies with the advancement of eHealth interventions by utilising appropriate frameworks is recommended for future research.