Web-Based Warfarin Management (Alfalfa App) Versus Traditional Warfarin Management: Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study

TL;DR

A study found that using a smartphone app for managing warfarin improved anticoagulation control and reduced minor bleeding compared to traditional methods.

Contribution

This study demonstrates that web-based warfarin management via the Alfalfa app improves anticoagulation quality and safety compared to traditional outpatient methods.

Findings

Web-based management achieved a higher time in therapeutic range (82.4% vs 71.6%) compared to traditional methods.

The web-based group had fewer minor bleeding events (6.6% vs 12.1%) and better INR distribution.

No significant differences were found in severe bleeding, thromboembolic events, or mortality between the groups.

Abstract

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Figures