Efficacy and Safety of Warfarin Therapy: Comparison Between Specialized INR Clinic and General Medical Clinic

Osman Elsayed Osman, Rabeea Ibrahim Haroun Ismail, Rayan Khalid, imad Mohamed Fadl Elmula
{"title":"Efficacy and Safety of Warfarin Therapy: Comparison Between Specialized INR Clinic and General Medical Clinic","authors":"Osman Elsayed Osman, Rabeea Ibrahim Haroun Ismail, Rayan Khalid, imad Mohamed Fadl Elmula","doi":"10.18502/sjms.v17i4.12548","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Although warfarin is known as effective oral anticoagulant to prevent thromboembolic events, its’ narrow therapeutic index requires ambient and good follow-up to reduce its therapeutic complications. There is a continuous debate whether the best practice to accomplish this goal is in a specialized international normalized ratio clinic (INR-C) or in a general medical clinic (General-C). Few, if any, studies have been done in Sudan to compare the safety and efficacy of anticoagulant therapy in those clinics. Thus, the objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of anticoagulant therapy in INR-C and in General-C. Methods: This is a prospective hospital-based study where 200 patients were divided into two groups (group A and B) of 100 patients. Group A were in the INR-C at Ahmed Gasim specialized hospital and group B in the General-Cat AL-Shaab teaching hospital. The study was conducted from September 2019 to April 2020. All patients were on warfarin treatment and regular follow-ups were conducted. Demographic and clinical data were collected and analyzed statistically using SPSS version 20. Ethical approval was obtained from the ethical committee of the Sudanese Medical Specialization Board (SMSB). Results: Of the 200 patients, 118/59% were females and 82/41% were males. Target international normalized ratio (INR) for group (A) was achieved in 56% of the patients in the first visit, increased to 63% in the second visit, and 75% in the third follow-up, compared with 24% of the patients from group (B) in the initial and second follow-up visit, to 43% in the third visit (P value=0.05). Knowledge about drug and food interaction of coagulation agents was higher (91%) among patients in group (A) compared with group (B) (56%). Drug interaction awareness was found in 89% of the patients in group (A) compared with only 40% in group (B) (P value=0.05). Major bleeding was reported in 2% and 14% of the patients of group (A) and (B) respectively, whereas minor bleeding was seen in 4% of group (A) and 11% of group (B). Conclusion: The study showed that INR-C is more efficient and safer for patients on regular warfarin therapy compared with the General-C.","PeriodicalId":132580,"journal":{"name":"Sudan journal of medical sciences","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sudan journal of medical sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18502/sjms.v17i4.12548","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Although warfarin is known as effective oral anticoagulant to prevent thromboembolic events, its’ narrow therapeutic index requires ambient and good follow-up to reduce its therapeutic complications. There is a continuous debate whether the best practice to accomplish this goal is in a specialized international normalized ratio clinic (INR-C) or in a general medical clinic (General-C). Few, if any, studies have been done in Sudan to compare the safety and efficacy of anticoagulant therapy in those clinics. Thus, the objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of anticoagulant therapy in INR-C and in General-C. Methods: This is a prospective hospital-based study where 200 patients were divided into two groups (group A and B) of 100 patients. Group A were in the INR-C at Ahmed Gasim specialized hospital and group B in the General-Cat AL-Shaab teaching hospital. The study was conducted from September 2019 to April 2020. All patients were on warfarin treatment and regular follow-ups were conducted. Demographic and clinical data were collected and analyzed statistically using SPSS version 20. Ethical approval was obtained from the ethical committee of the Sudanese Medical Specialization Board (SMSB). Results: Of the 200 patients, 118/59% were females and 82/41% were males. Target international normalized ratio (INR) for group (A) was achieved in 56% of the patients in the first visit, increased to 63% in the second visit, and 75% in the third follow-up, compared with 24% of the patients from group (B) in the initial and second follow-up visit, to 43% in the third visit (P value=0.05). Knowledge about drug and food interaction of coagulation agents was higher (91%) among patients in group (A) compared with group (B) (56%). Drug interaction awareness was found in 89% of the patients in group (A) compared with only 40% in group (B) (P value=0.05). Major bleeding was reported in 2% and 14% of the patients of group (A) and (B) respectively, whereas minor bleeding was seen in 4% of group (A) and 11% of group (B). Conclusion: The study showed that INR-C is more efficient and safer for patients on regular warfarin therapy compared with the General-C.
华法林治疗的疗效和安全性:专科INR门诊与普通内科门诊的比较
背景:虽然华法林是预防血栓栓塞事件的有效口服抗凝剂,但其狭窄的治疗指标需要环境良好的随访以减少其治疗并发症。实现这一目标的最佳做法是在专门的国际标准化比例诊所(INR-C)还是在普通医疗诊所(general - c),一直存在争议。在苏丹进行的比较这些诊所抗凝治疗的安全性和有效性的研究很少,如果有的话。因此,本研究的目的是比较INR-C和General-C抗凝治疗的疗效和安全性。方法:这是一项基于医院的前瞻性研究,200名患者被分为两组(a组和B组),每组100名患者。A组在Ahmed Gasim专科医院的INR-C, B组在AL-Shaab综合教学医院。该研究于2019年9月至2020年4月进行。所有患者均接受华法林治疗,并定期随访。收集人口学和临床资料,采用SPSS version 20进行统计学分析。获得了苏丹医学专业委员会伦理委员会的伦理批准。结果:200例患者中女性占118/59%,男性占82/41%。(A)组患者第一次访视时达到目标国际标准化比率(INR)的比例为56%,第二次访视时达到63%,第三次随访时达到75%,而(B)组患者第一次和第二次访视时达到24%,第三次访视时达到43% (P值=0.05)。A组患者对凝血剂药物与食物相互作用的知晓率(91%)高于B组(56%)。A组89%的患者有药物相互作用意识,而B组仅为40% (P值=0.05)。(A)组和(B)组分别有2%和14%的患者报告大出血,而(A)组和(B)组分别有4%和11%的患者报告轻微出血。结论:研究表明,与General-C相比,INR-C对常规华法林治疗的患者更有效,更安全。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信