Key result
Pharmacist-led interventions improve TTR, cutting strokes ~35% and lowering major bleeding vs usual care in AF.
Why the study?
Pharmacist-led interventions show benefits across various medical conditions, but their impact on atrial fibrillation remained unexplored.
Do pharmacist-led interventions improve clinical and process outcomes in adults with atrial fibrillation compared to usual care?
Meta-Analysis (n=11,428)
Do pharmacist-led interventions improve clinical and process outcomes in adults with atrial fibrillation compared to usual care?
Pharmacist-led interventions in atrial fibrillation management significantly reduce the risk of stroke and major bleeding while improving time in therapeutic range and appropriate oral anticoagulant prescribing.
Supports pharmacist roles in AF; hypothesis-generating until confirmed in randomized trials.
Background: Pharmacist-led interventions have demonstrated benefits across various medical conditions; however, their impact on atrial fibrillation (AF) remains unexplored. This study aims to synthesize the available evidence regarding the pharmacist’s role in AF management. Methods: A systematic review with searches in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was performed (PROSPERO: CRD42025647848). Randomized and non-randomized trials, as well as cohort studies reporting clinical, process, and humanistic outcomes, were included. Findings were pooled through pairwise meta-analyses. Dichotomous outcomes were reported as risk ratios (RRs) and continuous variables as standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The quality of the randomized and non-randomized studies was assessed using RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tools, respectively. Evidence was graded using the GRADE approach. Results: Seventeen studies (n = 11,428 participants) published between 2008 and 2024, predominantly as non-randomized trials/cohorts (77%), were included. Pharmacist-led interventions varied widely in scope, including anticoagulation management services, medication therapy management, and prescribing. Meta-analyses showed that pharmacists improved time in therapeutic range (SMD 0.35; 95% CI, 0.13–0.56) and reduced major bleeding events (RR 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61–0.95) and strokes (RR 0.65; 95% CI, 0.44–0.94) compared with usual care. Pharmacist care also increased appropriate prescription rates (RR 1.36, 95% CI, 1.18–1.56). No significant differences were found for other outcomes. Evidence was of low-to-moderate certainty. Interpretation: Pharmacist-led interventions have been shown to improve certain clinical and process outcomes in AF. Conclusions: High-quality randomized studies with well-defined interventions are still needed to better refine the pharmacist’s role in AF care and to identify the most effective intervention in practice (see Graphical Abstract). Can Pharm J (Ott) 2025;158:xx-xx.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tonin et al. (2025) conducted a meta-analysis in Atrial fibrillation (n=11,428). Pharmacist-led interventions vs. Usual care was evaluated on Major bleeding events (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61-0.95, p=0.02). Pharmacist-led interventions in patients with atrial fibrillation significantly reduced major bleeding events (RR 0.76) and strokes (RR 0.65) compared to usual care.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: