BACKGROUND: The introduction of point-of-care devices for the management of patients on oral anticoagulation allows self-testing by the patient at home. Patients who self-test can either adjust their medication according to a pre-determined dose-INR (international normalized ratio) schedule (self-management), or they can call a clinic to be told the appropriate dose adjustment (self-monitoring). Increasing evidence suggests self-testing of oral anticoagulant therapy is equal to or better than standard monitoring. This is an updated version of the original review published in 2010.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects on thrombotic events, major haemorrhages, and all-cause mortality of self-monitoring or self-management of oral anticoagulant therapy compared to standard monitoring.
SEARCH METHODS: For this review update, we re-ran the searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), 2015, Issue 6, the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to June week 4 2015), Embase (Ovid, 1980 to 2015 week 27) on 1 July 2015. We checked bibliographies and contacted manufacturers and authors of relevant studies. We did not apply any language restrictions .
SELECTION CRITERIA: Outcomes analysed were thromboembolic events, mortality, major haemorrhage, minor haemorrhage, tests in therapeutic range, frequency of testing, and feasibility of self-monitoring and self-management.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors independently extracted data and we used a fixed-effect model with the Mantzel-Haenzel method to calculate the pooled risk ratio (RR) and Peto’s method to verify the results for uncommon outcomes. We examined heterogeneity amongst studies with the Chi2 and I2 statistics and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified 28 randomised trials including 8950 participants (newly incorporated in this update: 10 trials including 4227 participants). The overall quality of the evidence was generally low to moderate. Pooled estimates showed a reduction in thromboembolic events (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.75; participants = 7594; studies = 18; moderate quality of evidence). Both, trials of self-management or self-monitoring showed reductions in thromboembolic events (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.70; participants = 3497; studies = 11) and (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.97; participants = 4097; studies = 7), respectively; the quality of evidence for both interventions was moderate. No reduction in all-cause mortality was found (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01; participants = 6358; studies = 11; moderate quality of evidence). While self-management caused a reduction in all-cause mortality (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.84; participants = 3058; studies = 8); self-monitoring did not (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.15; participants = 3300; studies = 3); the quality of evidence for both interventions was moderate. In 20 trials (8018 participants) self-monitoring or self-management did not reduce major haemorrhage (RR 0.95, 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.12; moderate quality of evidence). There was no significant difference found for minor haemorrhage (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.41; participants = 5365; studies = 13). The quality of evidence was graded as low because of serious risk of bias and substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 82%).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Participants who self-monitor or self-manage can improve the quality of their oral anticoagulation therapy. Thromboembolic events were reduced, for both those self-monitoring or self-managing oral anticoagulation therapy. A reduction in all-cause mortality was observed in trials of self-management but not in self-monitoring, with no effects on major haemorrhage.
Telehealth offers a great opportunity to provide follow-up care and daily monitoring of older adults in their homes. Although there is a significant body of literature related to telehealth in regard to design and adoption, little attention has been given by researchers to the perceptions of the older-adult end users of telehealth. As the numbers of older adults increases, there is a need to evaluate the perceptions of this population as they will most likely be the major users of telehealth. This review identified the current telehealth technologies that are available to older adults with a discussion on the facilitators of and barriers to those technologies. Literature published between 2003 and 2013 was reviewed using MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. A total of 2387 references were retrieved, but only 14 studies met the inclusion criteria. This review indicates that 50% of the studies did not specifically address facilitators of and barriers to adopting telehealth with older adults. Also, studies in this population did not address caregivers' perceptions on the facilitators of and barriers to telehealth. The use of telehealth among older adults is expected to rise, but effective adoption will be successful if the patient's perspective is kept at the forefront.
La télémédecine est de plus en plus une réalité dans les soins médicaux pour les personnes âgées. Nous avons effectué une revue systématique de la littérature sur les concepts de santé de télémédecine pour les patients plus âgés. Nous avons inclus les études contrôlées dans un cadre ambulatoire qui a analysé les interventions de télémédecine impliquant des patients âgés de ≥ 60 ans. 1585 articles correspondent aux critères de recherche spécifiés, ceux-ci, 68 pourraient être incluses dans l'examen. Applications répondre à une série de maladies fréquentes, la plupart du temps par exemple, les maladies cardiovasculaires (N = 37) ou de diabète (n = 18). La majorité des patients est encore en vie à la maison et est capable de gérer les dispositifs de télémédecine par eux-mêmes. Dans 59 des 68 articles (87%), l'intervention peut être classée comme la surveillance. La plus grande proportion des interventions de télémédecine se composait de mesures des signes vitaux combinés avec une interaction personnelle entre le prestataire de soins de santé et des patients (N = 24), et des concepts avec seulement une interaction personnelle (par téléphone ou par vidéoconférence, N = 14). Les études montrent des résultats largement positifs avec une nette tendance à de meilleurs résultats pour "comportementales" critères d'évaluation, par exemple, l'adhésion à la médication ou régime alimentaire et l'auto-efficacité par rapport aux résultats pour les résultats médicaux (hypertension artérielle, par exemple, ou de la mortalité), la qualité de la vie, et résultats économiques (par exemple les coûts ou hospitalisation). Cependant, dans 26 des 68 études incluses, les patients ayant des limitations caractéristiques pour les patients plus âgés (par exemple cognitif et visuels de communication, les barrières de valeur, des problèmes d'audition) ont été exclus. Un nombre considérable de projets utilisent la technologie assez sophistiquée (par exemple, la vidéoconférence), limitant traduction prête dans les soins de routine. Les recherches futures devraient se concentrer sur la façon d'adapter les systèmes aux besoins individuels et les ressources des personnes âgées au sein des cadres spécifiques de chacun des systèmes de santé nationaux.
The introduction of point-of-care devices for the management of patients on oral anticoagulation allows self-testing by the patient at home. Patients who self-test can either adjust their medication according to a pre-determined dose-INR (international normalized ratio) schedule (self-management), or they can call a clinic to be told the appropriate dose adjustment (self-monitoring). Increasing evidence suggests self-testing of oral anticoagulant therapy is equal to or better than standard monitoring. This is an updated version of the original review published in 2010.
OBJECTIVES:
To evaluate the effects on thrombotic events, major haemorrhages, and all-cause mortality of self-monitoring or self-management of oral anticoagulant therapy compared to standard monitoring.
SEARCH METHODS:
For this review update, we re-ran the searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), 2015, Issue 6, the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to June week 4 2015), Embase (Ovid, 1980 to 2015 week 27) on 1 July 2015. We checked bibliographies and contacted manufacturers and authors of relevant studies. We did not apply any language restrictions .
SELECTION CRITERIA:
Outcomes analysed were thromboembolic events, mortality, major haemorrhage, minor haemorrhage, tests in therapeutic range, frequency of testing, and feasibility of self-monitoring and self-management.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
Review authors independently extracted data and we used a fixed-effect model with the Mantzel-Haenzel method to calculate the pooled risk ratio (RR) and Peto’s method to verify the results for uncommon outcomes. We examined heterogeneity amongst studies with the Chi2 and I2 statistics and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS:
We identified 28 randomised trials including 8950 participants (newly incorporated in this update: 10 trials including 4227 participants). The overall quality of the evidence was generally low to moderate. Pooled estimates showed a reduction in thromboembolic events (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.75; participants = 7594; studies = 18; moderate quality of evidence). Both, trials of self-management or self-monitoring showed reductions in thromboembolic events (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.70; participants = 3497; studies = 11) and (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.97; participants = 4097; studies = 7), respectively; the quality of evidence for both interventions was moderate. No reduction in all-cause mortality was found (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01; participants = 6358; studies = 11; moderate quality of evidence). While self-management caused a reduction in all-cause mortality (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.84; participants = 3058; studies = 8); self-monitoring did not (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.15; participants = 3300; studies = 3); the quality of evidence for both interventions was moderate. In 20 trials (8018 participants) self-monitoring or self-management did not reduce major haemorrhage (RR 0.95, 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.12; moderate quality of evidence). There was no significant difference found for minor haemorrhage (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.41; participants = 5365; studies = 13). The quality of evidence was graded as low because of serious risk of bias and substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 82%).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
Participants who self-monitor or self-manage can improve the quality of their oral anticoagulation therapy. Thromboembolic events were reduced, for both those self-monitoring or self-managing oral anticoagulation therapy. A reduction in all-cause mortality was observed in trials of self-management but not in self-monitoring, with no effects on major haemorrhage.
