Effectiveness of the Alfalfa App in Warfarin Therapy Management for Patients Undergoing Venous Thrombosis Prevention and Treatment: Cohort Study.

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

BackgroundOver the years, the internet has enabled considerable progress in the management of chronic diseases, especially hypertension and diabetes. It also provides novel opportunities in online anticoagulation management. Nevertheless, there is insufficient evidence regarding the effectiveness of online anticoagulation management.ObjectiveThis study explored the effectiveness and safety of warfarin management via the Alfalfa app, so as to provide evidence in support of anticoagulant management through online services.MethodsIn this retrospective, observational cohort study, 824 patients were included. In the offline group, patients went to the hospital clinic for warfarin management. In the Alfalfa app group, patients reported the dose of warfarin, current international normalized ratio (INR) value, and other related information through the Alfalfa app. Physicians or pharmacists used the app to adjust the dose of warfarin and determined the time for the next blood INR testing. Patients completed INR testing by point-of-care at home or hospital. The primary outcome of the study was the percentage of time in therapeutic range (TTR). Secondary outcomes included minor and major bleeding events, thrombotic events, warfarin-related emergency department visits, hospital admissions, and high INR values.ResultsThe TTR and percentage of INR values in the range were significantly higher in the Alfalfa app group than in the offline group (79.35% vs 52.38%, P<.001; 3314/4282, 77.39% vs 2005/4202, 47.72%, P<.001, respectively). Patients managed via the Alfalfa app had lower rates of subtherapeutic (172/4282, 4.02% vs 388/4202, 9.23%; P<.001), supratherapeutic (487/4282, 11.37% vs 882/4202, 20.99%; P<.001), and extreme subtherapeutic INR values (290/4282, 6.77% vs 910/4202, 21.66%; P<.001). Additionally, the Alfalfa app group had lower incidences of major bleeding (2/425, 0.5% vs 12/399, 3.0%; P=.005), warfarin-related emergency department visits (13/425, 3.1% vs 37/399, 9.3%; P<.001), and hospital admissions (1/425, 0.2% vs 12/399, 3.0%; P=.001) compared with the offline group. However, the Alfalfa app group had a higher incidence of minor bleeding than the offline group (45/425, 10.6% vs 20/399, 5.0%; P=.003). There were similar incidences in extreme supratherapeutic INR values (19/4282, 0.44% vs 17/4202, 0.40%; P=.78) and thromboembolic events (1/425, 0.2% vs 1/399, 0.3%; P=.53) between the two groups.ConclusionsWarfarin management is superior via the Alfalfa app than via offline services in terms of major bleeding events, warfarin-related emergency department visits, and hospital admissions.