Effectiveness of telepharmacy diabetes services: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Although pharmacist-provided diabetes services have been shown to be effective, the effectiveness of telepharmacy (TP) in diabetes management has not been clearly established. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effectiveness of diabetes TP services. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched (from inception through September 2021) to identify published studies that evaluated the effect of TP services in patients with diabetes mellitus and reported either glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) or fasting blood glucose (FBG) outcomes. Mean difference (MD), weighted mean difference (WMD), relative risk (RR), and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model. RESULTS: 36 studies involving 13,773 patients were included in the systematic review, and 23 studies were included in the meta-analysis. TP was associated with a statistically significant decrease in HbA1c (MD, -1.26%; 95% CI, -1.69 to -0.84) from baseline. FBG was not significantly affected (MD, -25.32 mg/dL; 95% CI, -57.62 to 6.98). Compared to non-TP service, TP was associated with a lower risk of hypoglycemia (RR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.30-0.76). In a subset of studies that compared TP to face-to-face (FTF) pharmacy services, no significant difference in HbA1c lowering was seen between the 2 groups (WMD, -0.09%; 95% CI, -1.07 to 0.90). CONCLUSION: Use of TP was associated with reduction of HbA1c and the risk of hypoglycemia in patients with diabetes mellitus. High-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to validate the effectiveness of diabetes TP services relative to FTF services.

Effectiveness of Telepharmacy Versus Face-to-Face Anticoagulation Services in the Ambulatory Care Setting: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Effectiveness of anticoagulation services managed via telepharmacy (TP) has not been clearly demonstrated. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the effectiveness of TP anticoagulation services to face-to-face (FTF) anticoagulation services in the ambulatory care setting. METHODS: A literature search for studies assessing the effectiveness of TP services was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central databases, from inception through November 18, 2020. Studies that compared TP with FTF anticoagulation services in the ambulatory care setting were included. Outcomes of interest included thromboembolic events, major bleeding, minor bleeding, any bleeding, warfarin international normalized ratio (INR) time in therapeutic range (TTR), frequency of extreme INR, anticoagulation-related emergency department visits, anticoagulation-related hospitalization, any hospitalization, and mortality. Relative risk (RR) and weighted mean difference were calculated using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model. RESULTS: Overall, 11 studies involving 8395 patients were included in the systematic review, and 9 studies were included in the pooled meta-analysis. Compared with FTF service, TP was associated with a lower risk of any bleeding and any hospitalization, with RRs of 0.65 (95% CI = 0.47 to 0.90; P = 0.01) and 0.59 (95% CI = 0.39 to 0.87; P = 0.01), respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in TTR or the risk of extreme supratherapeutic INR, major bleeding, minor bleeding, or thromboembolic events between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: TP appears to be at least as effective as FTF anticoagulation services. Findings from this study support the utilization of TP practice models in ambulatory care anticoagulation management.