↓ Skip to main content

Effect of Standardized Warfarin Treatment Protocol on Anticoagulant Effect: Comparison of a Warfarin Medication Therapy Adherence Clinic with Usual Medical Care

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effect of Standardized Warfarin Treatment Protocol on Anticoagulant Effect: Comparison of a Warfarin Medication Therapy Adherence Clinic with Usual Medical Care
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, November 2017
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2017.00637
Pubmed ID
Authors

Salihah Aidit, Yee Chang Soh, Chuan Seng Yap, Tahir M. Khan, Chin Fen Neoh, Shazwani Shaharuddin, Yaman W. Kassab, Rahul P. Patel, Long C. Ming

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the impact of pharmacist-led warfarin management and standardized treatment protocol. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was carried out in a cardiology referral hospital located in central Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, from 2009 to 2014. The inclusion criteria were: adult patients who were diagnosed and treated for atrial fibrillation (AF) with warfarin, attended the warfarin medication therapy adherence clinic (WMTAC) for at least 12 weeks, and with at least four international normalized ratio (INR) readings. The electronic medical records were reviewed for demographics, type of AF, warfarin dose, INRs, adverse events, co-morbidities, and drug-drug interactions. The outcome measures included the mean time to therapeutic INR, the mean percentage of time in therapeutic range (TTR), bleeding events, and common drug interactions. Results: Out of 473 patients, 151 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The findings revealed that there were significant associations between the usual medical care (UMC) group and pharmacist-led WMTAC in terms of TTR (p = 0.01) and INR (p = 0.02) levels. A positive impact of pharmacists' involvement in the WMTAC clinic was where the "pharmacist's recommendation accepted" (p = 0.01) and "expanded therapeutic INR range" (p = 0.04) were statistically significantly higher in the WMTAC group. Conclusion: There was a significant positive association between the pharmacist-led WMTAC and anticoagulation effect (therapeutic TTR, INR). The identified findings revealed that expanded role of pharmacist in pharmacist-managed warfarin therapy is beneficial to optimize the warfarin therapy. This study also highlighted the critical roles that pharmacists can actively play to ensure optimal anticoagulation pharmaceutical care. What is already known on this subject?• Pharmacist-managed warfarin therapy is beneficial for optimizing warfarin therapy. In such therapy, recommendations such as dose adjustment and safer alternative drugs (given drug-drug interactions and/or food-drug interactions) are made.• The active involvement of pharmacists in warfarin adherence clinics could significantly improve adherence.• However, the warfarin treatment outcomes from UMC, pharmacist-and-physician-led care and pharmacist-led care have not been studied.• The impact of the implementation of the standardized protocol for the warfarin adherence clinic has not been assessed.What this study adds?• INR levels among UMC group and WMTAC group were significantly different.• Though the TTR level for the WMTAC group was not significantly different than the UMC group, it was higher and close to the targeted 60% level.• The identified findings show that pharmacists' focus on intervention for missed doses, adherence and dose adjustment provide positive impact on patients' warfarin therapy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 92 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 19 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 15%
Student > Master 11 12%
Student > Postgraduate 5 5%
Researcher 4 4%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 27 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 26 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Psychology 3 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 2%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 30 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 December 2020.
All research outputs
#13,058,343
of 23,007,887 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#3,657
of 16,313 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,684
of 331,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#69
of 282 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,887 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,313 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,173 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 282 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.