Digital dashboards for oral anticoagulation management: a literature scoping review.

This scoping review summarizes the extent and characteristics of the published literature describing digital population management dashboards implemented to improve the quality of anticoagulant management. A standardized search protocol was executed to identify relevant manuscripts published between January 1, 2015 and May 31, 2022. The resulting records were systematically evaluated by multiple blinded reviewers and the findings from selected papers were evaluated and summarized. Twelve manuscripts were identified, originating from 5 organizations within the US and 2 from other countries. The majority (75%) described implementation in the outpatient setting. The identified papers described a variety of positive results of dashboard use, including a 24.5% reduction of questionable direct oral anticoagulant dosing in one organization, a 33.3% relative improvement in no-show appointments in an ambulatory care clinic, and a 75% improvement in intervention efficiency. One medical center achieved a 98.4% risk-appropriate venous thromboembolism risk prophylaxis prescribing rate and 40.6% reduction in anticoagulation-related adverse event rates. The manuscripts primarily described retrospective findings from single-center dashboard implementation experiences. Digital dashboards have been successfully implemented to support the anticoagulation of acute and ambulatory patients and available manuscripts suggest a positive impact on care-related processes and relevant patient outcomes. Prospective studies are needed to better characterize the implementation and impact of dashboards for anticoagulation management. Published reports suggest that digital dashboards may improve the quality, safety, and efficiency of anticoagulation management. Additional research is needed to validate these findings and to understand how best to implement these tools.

Brand name versus generic warfarin: a systematic review of the literature.

The use of generic drugs has become increasingly common in clinical practice. However, for drugs with a narrow therapeutic index, such as warfarin, there may be some concern regarding the definition of bioequivalence. Clinical studies that compared brand name and generic warfarin products provided conflicting results. Therefore, we performed a systematic review of the literature to better assess the characteristics of each generic warfarin product. Several sources were searched, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, electronic records of meetings' abstracts, and reference lists of included articles. Articles were considered relevant if they were original studies, enrolled patients receiving oral anticoagulant treatment, and compared any approved generic warfarin with brand name warfarin in at least one clinical, laboratory, or management outcome. Eleven studies, with a total of more than 40,000 patients, were included; five were randomized controlled trials, and six were observational studies. In three crossover trials evaluating the mean difference of the international normalized ratio (INR) after switching to the alternate formulation of warfarin, no statistically significant difference was found between patients randomly assigned to receive brand name or generic warfarin. The two other randomized trials found no significant differences in the magnitude or number of dosage changes between patients switched to brand name or generic warfarin. The results of the observational studies are more conflicting, suggesting different features for different generic warfarin products. In these observational studies, the time in the therapeutic range and the number of thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications were similar in studies that compared the anticoagulation control before and after the switch to a generic warfarin product. In one observational study, however, a change in therapeutic INR control after the switch to generic warfarin was reported at the individual patient level. The results of our systematic review suggest that generic warfarin products may be as safe and effective as brand name products and that patients may be safely treated with these products. However, closer monitoring may be reasonable when switching brands, as variations in individual INR response may be seen.

Oral vitamin K effectively treats international normalised ratio (INR) values in excess of 10. Results of a prospective cohort study.

Unanticipated elevation of the INR is common in patients receiving warfarin. We performed a prospective cohort study of 107 warfarin-treated patients with INR values of more than 10 who received a single 2.5 mg dose of oral vitamin K. During the first week, one patient experienced major bleeding, and one died. In the first 90 days after enrolment four patients had major bleeding (3.7%, 1.0% to 9.3%), eight patients (7.5%, 3.3% to 14.2%) died and two had objectively confirmed thromboembolism. Based on our low rate of observed major bleeding we conclude that 2.5 mg of oral vitamin K is a reasonable treatment for patients with INR values of more than 10 who are not actively bleeding.

Oral vitamin K versus placebo to correct excessive anticoagulation in patients receiving warfarin: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Low-dose oral vitamin K decreases the international normalized ratio (INR) in overanticoagulated patients who receive warfarin therapy. Its effects on bleeding events are uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To see whether low-dose oral vitamin K reduces bleeding events over 90 days in patients with warfarin-associated coagulopathy. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Randomization was computer-generated, and participants were allocated to trial groups by using sequentially numbered study drug containers. Patients, caregivers, and those who assessed outcomes were blinded to treatment assignment. SETTING: 14 anticoagulant therapy clinics in Canada, the United States, and Italy. PATIENTS: Nonbleeding patients with INR values of 4.5 to 10.0. INTERVENTION: Oral vitamin K, 1.25 mg (355 patients randomly assigned; 347 analyzed), or matching placebo (369 patients randomly assigned; 365 analyzed). MEASUREMENTS: Bleeding events (primary outcome), thromboembolism, and death (secondary outcomes). RESULTS: 56 patients (15.8%) in the vitamin K group and 60 patients (16.3%) in the placebo group had at least 1 bleeding complication (absolute difference, -0.5 percentage point [95% CI, -6.1 to 5.1 percentage points]); major bleeding events occurred in 9 patients (2.5%) in the vitamin K group and 4 patients (1.1%) in the placebo group (absolute difference, 1.5 percentage points [CI, -0.8 to 3.7 percentage points]). Thromboembolism occurred in 4 patients (1.1%) in the vitamin K group and 3 patients (0.8%) in the placebo group (absolute difference, 0.3 percentage point [CI, -1.4 to 2.0 percentage points]). Other adverse effects were not assessed. The day after treatment, the INR had decreased by a mean of 1.4 in the placebo group and 2.8 in the vitamin K group (P < 0.001). LIMITATION: Patients who were actively bleeding were not included, and warfarin dosing after enrollment was not mandated or followed. CONCLUSION: Low-dose oral vitamin K did not reduce bleeding in warfarin recipients with INRs of 4.5 to 10.0. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Italian Ministry of Universities and Research.