School of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 26, Hobart, Tasmania 7000, Australia.
Clinical Pharmacy Unit and Research Team, Department of Pharmacy, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Bahir Dar University, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia.
Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes. 2024 Sep 13;10(6):488-506. doi: 10.1093/ehjqcco/qcae045.
Although pharmacist-led interventions in anticoagulant (AC) therapy are widely accepted, there is a lack of evidence comparing their effectiveness with usual care in terms of AC therapy appropriateness and clinical outcomes. We aimed to estimate the comparative effectiveness of pharmacist-led interventions on the appropriateness and clinical outcomes of AC therapy.
Adhering to the PRISMA guidelines, we searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases to identify randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental and cohort studies published between 2010 and 2023. A random-effects model was used to calculate pooled intervention effects. We assessed heterogeneity (using Higgins' I2 and Cochran's Q) and publication bias (using Egger's test, the trim-and-fill method, and visualization of the funnel plot). In total, 35 studies involving 10 374 patients in the intervention groups and 11 840 in the control groups were included. The pharmacist-led interventions significantly improved the appropriateness of AC therapy [odds ratio (OR): 3.43, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.33-5.06, P < 0.01]. They significantly decreased total bleeding [relative risk (RR): 0.75, 95% CI: 0.58-0.96, P = 0.03) and hospitalization or readmission (RR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.41-0.99, P = 0.04). However, the impact of the pharmacist-led interventions on thromboembolic events (RR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.46-1.02, P = 0.07) and mortality (RR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.51-1.13, P = 0.17) was not significant.
Pharmacist-led interventions demonstrated superior outcomes in optimizing AC therapy compared with usual care. Further research is needed to evaluate pharmacist-led interventions' cost-effectiveness and long-term sustainability. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023487362.
尽管药师主导的抗凝(AC)治疗干预措施已被广泛接受,但在 AC 治疗的适当性和临床结局方面,缺乏将其与常规护理进行效果比较的证据。我们旨在评估药师主导的干预措施在 AC 治疗的适当性和临床结局方面的比较效果。
我们遵循 PRISMA 指南,在 PubMed、EMBASE 和 Scopus 数据库中检索了 2010 年至 2023 年期间发表的随机对照试验和准实验性及队列研究。使用随机效应模型计算汇总干预效果。我们评估了异质性(使用 Higgins' I² 和 Cochran's Q)和发表偏倚(使用 Egger 检验、修剪和填充法以及漏斗图可视化)。共纳入了 35 项研究,其中干预组涉及 10374 例患者,对照组涉及 11840 例患者。药师主导的干预措施显著提高了 AC 治疗的适当性[比值比(OR):3.43,95%置信区间(CI):2.33-5.06,P<0.01]。它们还显著降低了总出血[相对风险(RR):0.75,95%CI:0.58-0.96,P=0.03]和住院或再入院[RR:0.64,95%CI:0.41-0.99,P=0.04]的风险。然而,药师主导的干预措施对血栓栓塞事件(RR:0.69,95%CI:0.46-1.02,P=0.07)和死亡率(RR:0.76,95%CI:0.51-1.13,P=0.17)的影响并不显著。
与常规护理相比,药师主导的干预措施在优化 AC 治疗方面表现出更好的结果。需要进一步研究来评估药师主导的干预措施的成本效益和长期可持续性。PROSPERO 注册号:CRD42023487362。