Home medicines reviews in Australian war veterans taking warfarin do not influence international normalised ratio control

Bereznicki, Lre; Tienen, E. C. van; Stafford, Andrew

doi:10.1111/imj.12964

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, this was in controlled clinical trial conditions with limited data on warfarin TTR in real‐world clinical practice. Bereznicki et al reported an overall TTR of 64.0% in Australian veterans taking warfarin. Further Australian studies have reported regionally specific TTRs of 69.1% in southern Tasmanian patients, 55.4% in the top end of the Northern Territory, and 79%‐81% in Queensland .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dedicated warfarin care programme results in superior warfarin control in Queensland, Australia

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dedicated warfarin care programme results in superior warfarin control in Queensland, Australia

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Pharmacist-participated medication review in different practice settings: Service or intervention? An overview of systematic reviews

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionMedication review (MR) is a pharmacy practice conducted in different settings that has a positive impact on patient health outcomes. In this context, systematic reviews on MR have restricted the assessment of this practice using criteria such as methodological quality, practice settings, and patient outcomes. Therefore, expanding research on this subject is necessary to facilitate the understanding of the effectiveness of MR and the comparison of its results.AimTo examine the panorama of systematic reviews on pharmacist-participated MR in different practice settings.MethodsA literature search was undertaken in Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde (BVS), Embase, PubMed, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases through January 2018 using keywords for "medication review", "systematic review", and "pharmacist". Two independents investigators screened titles, abstracts, full texts; assessed methodological quality; and, extracted data from the included reviews.ResultsSeventeen systematic reviews were included, of which sixteen presented low to moderate methodological quality. Most of reviews were conducted in Europe (n = 7), included controlled primary studies (n = 16), elderly patients (n = 9), and long-term care facilities (n = 8). Seven reviews addressed MR as an intervention and thirteen reviews cited collaboration between physicians and pharmacists in the practice of MR. In addition, thirteen terminologies for MR were used and the main objective was to identify and solve drug-related problems and/or optimize the drug use (n = 11).ConclusionThere is considerable heterogeneity in practice settings, population, definitions, terminologies, and approach of MR as well as poor description of patient care process in the systematic reviews. These facts may limit the comparison, summarization and understanding of the results of MR. Furthermore, the methodological quality of most systematic reviews was below ideal. Thus, international agreement on the MR process is necessary to assess, compare and optimize the quality of care provided.

show abstract

Home medicines reviews in Australian war veterans taking warfarin do not influence international normalised ratio control

Abstract: INR was well-controlled in this elderly cohort, comparable to that achieved in recent randomised trials involving warfarin. Pharmacist-led medication reviews were not associated with a change in INR control.

Cited by 2 publications

References 20 publications

Dedicated warfarin care programme results in superior warfarin control in Queensland, Australia

Dedicated warfarin care programme results in superior warfarin control in Queensland, Australia

Pharmacist-participated medication review in different practice settings: Service or intervention? An overview of systematic reviews

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About