Warfarin is the most commonly used oral anticoagulant in North America and has established efficacy for the prevention of thromboembolic events in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation, prosthetic heart valves, venous thromboembolism, and coronary artery disease.^1-4 The drug is a racemic mixture of 2 optically active isomers, though the S-enantiomer is approximately 5 times more potent than the R-enantiomer. Warfarin exerts its effect by lowering the amount of active vitamin K available for the activation of clotting factors II, VII, IX, and X.⁵ Both effectiveness and safety (primarily risk of bleeding) are related to blood international normalized ratio (INR) values. Monitoring of INR and dose adjustments of warfarin are frequently required, influenced by changes in concomitant medications, diet, alcohol consumption, acute illness, liver disease, and unknown factors.⁵

Background: Diabetes mellitus is a complex disease with serious complications. Electronic decision support, providing information that is shared and discussed by both patient and physician, encourages timely interventions and may improve the management of this chronic disease. However, it has rarely been tested in community-based primary care. Methods: In this pragmatic randomized trial, we randomly assigned adult primary care patients with type 2 diabetes to receive the intervention or usual care. The intervention involved shared access by the primary care provider and the patient to a Web-based, colour-coded diabetes tracker, which provided sequential monitoring values for 13 diabetes risk factors, their respective targets and brief, prioritized messages of advice. The primary outcome measure was a process composite score. Secondary outcomes included clinical composite scores, quality of life, continuity of care and usability. The outcome assessors were blinded to each patient’s intervention status. Results: We recruited sequentially 46 primary care providers and then 511 of their patients (mean age 60.7 [standard deviation 12.5] years). Mean follow-up was 5.9 months. The process composite score was significantly better for patients in the intervention group than for control patients (difference 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79–1.75, p < 0.001); 61.7% (156/253) of patients in the intervention group, compared with 42.6% (110/258) of control patients, showed improvement (difference 19.1%, p < 0.001). The clinical composite score also had significantly more variables with improvement for the intervention group (0.59, 95% CI 0.09–1.10, p = 0.02), including significantly greater declines in blood pressure (−3.95 mm Hg systolic and −2.38 mm Hg diastolic) and glycated hemoglobin (−0.2%). Patients in the intervention group reported greater satisfaction with their diabetes care. Interpretation: A shared electronic decision-support system to support the primary care of diabetes improved the process of care and some clinical markers of the quality of diabetes care. (ClinicalTrials.gov trial register no. NCT00813085.)

Objectives Prevention of falls and fall-related injuries is a priority due to the substantial health and financial burden of falls on patients and healthcare systems. Deprescribing medications known as ‘fall-risk increasing drugs’ (FRIDs) is a common strategy to prevent falls. We conducted a systematic review to determine its efficacy for the prevention of falls and fall-related complications. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL and grey literature from inception to 1 August 2020. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials of FRID withdrawal compared with usual care evaluating the rate of falls, incidence of falls, fall-related injuries, fall-related fractures, fall-related hospitalisations or adverse effects related to the intervention in adults aged ≥65 years. Data extraction and synthesis Two reviewers independently performed citation screening, data abstraction, risk of bias assessment and certainty of evidence grading. Random-effects models were used for meta-analyses. Results Five trials involving 1305 participants met eligibility criteria. Deprescribing FRIDs did not change the rate of falls (rate ratio (RaR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.51), the incidence of falls (risk difference 0.01, 95% CI −0.06 to 0.09; relative risk 1.04, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.26) or rate of fall-related injuries (RaR 0.89, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.39) over a follow-up period of 6–12 months. No trials evaluated the impact of deprescribing FRIDs on fall-related fractures or hospitalisations. Conclusion There is a paucity of robust high-quality evidence to support or refute that a FRID deprescribing strategy alone is effective at preventing falls or fall-related injury in older adults. Although there may be other reasons to deprescribe FRIDs, our systematic review found that it may result in little to no difference in the rate or risk of falls as a sole falls reduction strategy. PROSPERO registration number CRD42016040203.

Background: Computerized clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) for drug therapy management are designed to promote safe and effective medication use. Evidence documenting the effectiveness of CCDSSs for improving drug therapy is necessary for informed adoption decisions. The objective of this review was to systematically review randomized controlled trials assessing the effects of CCDSSs for drug therapy management on process of care and patient outcomes. We also sought to identify system and study characteristics that predicted benefit. Methods: We conducted a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review. We updated our earlier reviews (1998, 2005) by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, Inspec, and other databases, and consulting reference lists through January 2010. Authors of 82% of included studies confirmed or supplemented extracted data. We included only randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effect on process of care or patient outcomes of a CCDSS for drug therapy management compared to care provided without a CCDSS. A study was considered to have a positive effect (i.e., CCDSS showed improvement) if at least 50% of the relevant study outcomes were statistically significantly positive. Results: Sixty-five studies met our inclusion criteria, including 41 new studies since our previous review. Methodological quality was generally high and unchanged with time. CCDSSs improved process of care performance in 37 of the 59 studies assessing this type of outcome (64%, 57% of all studies). Twenty-nine trials assessed patient outcomes, of which six trials (21%, 9% of all trials) reported improvements. Conclusions: CCDSSs inconsistently improved process of care measures and seldomly improved patient outcomes. Lack of clear patient benefit and lack of data on harms and costs preclude a recommendation to adopt CCDSSs for drug therapy management.