{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Web-Based Warfarin Management (Alfalfa App) Versus Traditional Warfarin Management: Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study.
{Author}: Chen W;Chen J;Jiang S;Wang C;Zhang J;
{Journal}: J Med Internet Res
{Volume}: 26
{Issue}: 0
{Year}: 2024 Jul 29
{Factor}: 7.076
{DOI}: 10.2196/46319
{Abstract}: <B>BACKGROUND: </B>Poor anticoagulation management of warfarin may lead to patient admission, prolonged hospital stays, and even death due to anticoagulation-related adverse events. Traditional non-web-based outpatient clinics struggle to provide ideal anticoagulation management services for patients, and there is a need to explore a safer, more effective, and more convenient mode of warfarin management.<BR><B>OBJECTIVE: </B>This study aimed to compare differences in the quality of anticoagulation management and clinical adverse events between a web-based management model (via a smartphone app) and the conventional non-web-based outpatient management model.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>This study is a prospective cohort research that includes multiple national centers. Patients meeting the nadir criteria were split into a web-based management group using the Alfalfa app or a non-web-based management group with traditional outpatient management, and they were then monitored for a 6-month follow-up period to collect coagulation test results and clinical events. The effectiveness and safety of the 2 management models were assessed by the following indicators: time in therapeutic range (TTR), bleeding events, thromboembolic events, all-cause mortality events, cumulative event rates, and the distribution of the international normalized ratio (INR).<BR><B>RESULTS: </B>This national multicenter cohort study enrolled 522 patients between June 2019 and May 2021, with 519 (99%) patients reaching the follow-up end point, including 260 (50%) in the non-web-based management group and 259 (50%) in the web-based management group. There were no observable differences in baseline characteristics between the 2 patient groups. The web-based management group had a significantly higher TTR than the non-web-based management group (82.4% vs 71.6%, P<.001), and a higher proportion of patients received effective anticoagulation management (81.2% vs 63.5%, P<.001). The incidence of minor bleeding events in the non-web-based management group was significantly higher than that in the web-based management group (12.1% vs 6.6%, P=.048). Between the 2 groups, there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of severe bleeding and thromboembolic and all-cause death events. In addition, compared with the non-web-based management group, the web-based management group had a lower proportion of INR in the extreme subtreatment range (17.6% vs 21.3%) and severe supertreatment range (0% vs 0.8%) and a higher proportion in the treatment range (50.4% vs 43.1%), with statistical significance.<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>Compared with traditional non-web-based outpatient management, web-based management via the Alfalfa app may be more beneficial because it can enhance patient anticoagulation management quality, lower the frequency of small bleeding events, and improve INR distribution.