View Item 

Home medicines reviews in Australian war veterans taking warfarin do not influence International Normalised Ratio control.

Access Status
Open access
Authors
Date
2015
Type
Journal Article

Metadata
Show full item record
Citation
Bereznicki, L. and van Tienen, E. and Stafford, A. 2015. Home medicines reviews in Australian war veterans taking warfarin do not influence international normalised ratio control. Internal Medicine Journal. 46 (3): pp. 288-294.
Source Title
Internal Medicine Journal
DOI
ISSN
School
School of Pharmacy
Remarks

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Bereznicki, L. and van Tienen, E. and Stafford, A. 2015. Home medicines reviews in Australian war veterans taking warfarin do not influence international normalised ratio control. Internal Medicine Journal. 46 (3): pp. 288-294, which has been published in final form http://doi.org/10.1111/imj.12964. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving at http://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-820227.html#terms

URI
Collection
Abstract

Background: The clinical outcomes of warfarin are largely dependent on the international normalised ratio (INR) control achieved, and strategies to improve the time in therapeutic range (TTR) should be identified and widely implemented in practice. Aims: To investigate the influence of pharmacist-led medication reviews on INR control and observe the quality of INR control in Australian veterans who take warfarin. Methods: We undertook a retrospective cohort study using administrative claims data for Australian veterans and war-widows identified by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs who were regularly dispensed warfarin and invited them to contact the research team. Pathology providers were subsequently contacted to provide INR results. Results: INR data were available for 344 of 818 (42.1%) veterans who consented to participate in the study; 64.4% were male and the median age was 83 years. The overall TTR for the veteran cohort during the study period was 64.0%. There was no difference in the TTR in the 6 months following home medicines review (HMR) compared with the control group (63.0% vs 67.0%, P = 0.27), with the TTR in patients with INR data available in the 6 months prior to, and the 6 months following HMR, remaining high (67.9% vs 69.6% P = 0.63). Approximately, one-third of veterans in this study had a percentage TTR below 60%. Conclusions: 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.