Lee James C, Horner Kathleen E, Krummel Michelle L, McDanel Deanna L
1 Department of Pharmacy Practice/Ambulatory Pharmacy Services, University of Illinois Hospital & Health Sciences System, University of Illinois at Chicago College of Pharmacy, Chicago, IL, USA.
2 Department of Pharmaceutical Care, University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics, Iowa City, IA, USA.
J Pharm Pract. 2018 Apr;31(2):150-156. doi: 10.1177/0897190017703506. Epub 2017 Apr 26.
To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and indirect financial outcomes of pharmacist face-to-face warfarin management with telephone-based distance management utilizing local laboratories or patient self-testing (PST).
A retrospective analysis of a clinic population of 336 patients on established warfarin therapy distributed statewide in rural and urban settings over a 6-month period was conducted. Participants were stratified into face-to-face management, telephone-based management utilizing local laboratory testing, and telephone-based management utilizing PST.
The primary outcome of international normalized ratio (INR) time in therapeutic range (TTR) for face-to-face management was significantly greater than distance management utilizing local laboratory testing (69.0% vs 60.5%, P = .0032). No difference was observed between face-to-face management and PST (69.0% vs 68.0%, P = .25). No significant difference in bleeding or thromboses was observed. Although increased clinician time was utilized during face-to-face encounters compared to telephone encounters (8.7-minute face-to-face, 5.5-minute local laboratory, and 5.4-minute PST), face-to-face encounters tended to be billable at lower levels, whereas telephone-based encounters were billable at higher levels.
A multimodal approach to pharmacist warfarin management of a patient population distributed statewide in rural and urban locations is effective despite TTR differences associated with INR testing used in distance management. PST may improve warfarin treatment outcomes and adherence in distance management, particularly when the use of alternative oral anticoagulants is inappropriate. Although time and billing differences between face-to-face and distance management exist, clinical and safety outcomes remain acceptable despite encounter complexity and support reimbursement of pharmacist anticoagulation management in all settings.
评估药剂师面对面华法林管理与利用当地实验室或患者自我检测(PST)的电话远程管理的疗效、安全性及间接财务结果。
对336例接受既定华法林治疗的患者进行回顾性分析,这些患者在6个月内分布于全州农村和城市地区的诊所。参与者被分为面对面管理组、利用当地实验室检测的电话远程管理组和利用PST的电话远程管理组。
面对面管理的国际标准化比值(INR)处于治疗范围内(TTR)的主要结果显著高于利用当地实验室检测的远程管理(69.0%对60.5%,P = 0.0032)。面对面管理与PST之间未观察到差异(69.0%对68.0%,P = 0.25)。在出血或血栓形成方面未观察到显著差异。尽管与电话问诊相比,面对面问诊期间临床医生花费的时间更多(面对面8.7分钟、当地实验室5.5分钟、PST5.4分钟),但面对面问诊的计费水平往往较低,而电话远程问诊的计费水平较高。
尽管与远程管理中使用的INR检测相关的TTR存在差异,但对分布于全州农村和城市地区的患者群体采用多模式药剂师华法林管理方法是有效的。PST可能会改善远程管理中的华法林治疗结果和依从性,特别是在使用替代口服抗凝剂不合适的情况下。尽管面对面管理和远程管理在时间和计费方面存在差异,但尽管问诊复杂且支持所有环境中药剂师抗凝管理的报销,但临床和安全结果仍然可以接受。