Search

Background: Oral anticoagulation therapy with warfarin requires frequent monitoring level of anticoagulation by the international normalized ratio (INR). In Africa, studies that explore anticoagulation control, treatment outcomes, and associated factors are reported in various ways in long-term patients receiving warfarin therapy to generate concrete scientific evidence. Methods: The literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, African Journal of Online databases, Google Scholar, and Google. An advanced search strategy was computed to retrieve relevant studies related to anticoagulation control and outcomes. Duplication, title and abstract screening, and full-text assessment were conducted in Covidence software. Study quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical appraisal quality assessment tool. The systematic review is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021260772) and performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guideline. Results: Out of 298 identified articles, 18 articles were eligible for the final review and analysis. The mean of 39.4 ± 8.4% time in therapeutic range (TTR) (29.4 to 57.3%), 36.7 ± 11.5% TTR (range 25.2–49.7%) and 46% TTR (43.5–48.5%) was computed from studies that determined TTR by Rosendaal, direct and cross-section-of-the-files methods, respectively. In this review, the lowest percentage of TTR was 13.7%, while the highest was 57.3%. The highest percentage of patients (32.25%) who had TTR ≥ 65% was reported in Tunisia, but the lowest percentages were in Namibia (10%, TTR ≥ 65%) and Kenya (10.4%, TTR ≥ 70%). Most of the included studies (11 out of 18) used Rosendaal's method while the direct method was employed by three studies. Generally, 10.4–32.3% of study participants achieved desired optimal anticoagulation level. Regarding secondary outcomes, 1.6–7.5% and 0.006–59% of patients experienced thromboembolic complications and bleeding events, respectively. Having chronic comorbidities, taking more than two drugs, and presence of medications that potentially interact with warfarin, and patient-related factors (patients aged < 50 years old, female gender, lower education level, smoking history) were the frequently reported predictors of poor anticoagulation therapy. Conclusions: Oral anticoagulation control was suboptimal in patients taking warfarin as evidenced by low TTR in Africa. Therefore, there is an urgent need for further improving oral anticoagulation management services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Global action plans to tackle antimicrobial resistance (AMR) include implementation of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS), but few studies have directly addressed the challenges faced by low and middle-income countries (LMICs). Our aim was to explore healthcare providers’ knowledge and perceptions on AMR, and barriers/facilitators to successful implementation of a pharmacist-led AMS intervention in a referral hospital in Ethiopia. Methods: Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital (TASH) is an 800-bed tertiary center in Addis Ababa, and the site of an ongoing 4-year study on AMR. Between May and July 2017, using a mixed approach of quantitative and qualitative methods, we performed a cross-sectional survey of pharmacists and physicians using a pre-tested questionnaire and semi-structured interviews of purposively selected respondents until thematic saturation. We analyzed differences in proportions of agreement between physicians and pharmacists using χ2 and fisher exact tests. Qualitative data was analyzed thematically. Findings: A total of 406 survey respondents (358 physicians, 48 pharmacists), and 35 key informants (21 physicians and 14 pharmacists) were enrolled. The majority of survey respondents (>90%) strongly agreed with statements regarding the global scope of AMR, the need for stewardship, surveillance and education, but their perceptions on factors contributing to AMR and their knowledge of institutional resistance profiles for common bacteria were less uniform. Close to 60% stated that a significant proportion of S. aureus infections were caused by methicillin-resistant strains (an incorrect statement), while only 48% thought a large proportion of gram-negative infections were caused by cephalosporin-resistant strains (a true statement). Differences were noted between physicians and pharmacists: more pharmacists agreed with statements on links between use of broad-spectrum antibiotics and AMR (p<0.022), but physicians were more aware that lack of diagnostic tests led to antibiotic overuse (p<0.01). More than cost, fear of treatment failure and of retribution from senior physicians were major drivers of antibiotic prescription behavior particularly among junior physicians. All respondents identified high turnover of pharmacists, poor communication between the laboratory, pharmacists and clinicians as potential challenges; but the existing hierarchical culture and academic setting were touted as opportunities to implement AMS in Ethiopia. Conclusions: This knowledge and perceptions survey identified specific educational priorities and implementation strategies for AMS in our setting. This is likely also true in other LMICs, where expertise and infrastructure may be lacking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]