James Gallagher1, David O'Sullivan1, Suzanne McCarthy1, Paddy Gillespie2, Noel Woods3, Denis O'Mahony4,5, Stephen Byrne6. 1. Pharmaceutical Care Research Group, School of Pharmacy, University College Cork, College Road, Cork, Ireland. 2. School of Business and Economics, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland. 3. Centre for Policy Studies, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland. 4. Department of Geriatric Medicine, Cork University Hospital, Wilton, Cork, Ireland. 5. School of Medicine, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Brookfield Complex, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland. 6. Pharmaceutical Care Research Group, School of Pharmacy, University College Cork, College Road, Cork, Ireland. stephen.byrne@ucc.ie.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A recent cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) conducted in an Irish hospital evaluating a structured pharmacist review of medication (SPRM), supported by computerised clinical decision support software (CDSS), demonstrated positive outcomes in terms of reduction of adverse drug reactions (ADR). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the cost effectiveness of pharmacists applying an SPRM in conjunction with CDSS to older hospitalised patients compared with usual pharmaceutical care. METHOD: Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a cluster RCT. The trial was conducted in a tertiary hospital in the south of Ireland. Patients in the intervention arm (n = 361) received a multifactorial intervention consisting of medicines reconciliation, deployment of CDSS and generation of a pharmaceutical care plan. Patients in the control arm (n = 376) received usual care from the hospital pharmacy team. Incremental cost effectiveness was examined in terms of costs to the healthcare system and an outcome measure of ADRs during an inpatient hospital stay. Uncertainty in the analysis was explored using a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC). RESULTS: On average, the intervention arm was the dominant strategy in terms of cost effectiveness. Compared with usual care (control), the intervention was associated with a decrease of €807 [95% confidence interval (CI) -3443 to 1829; p = 0.548) in mean healthcare cost, and a decrease in the mean number of ADR events per patient of -0.064 (95% CI -0.135 to 0.008; p = 0.081). The probability of the intervention being cost effective at respective threshold values of €0, €250, €500, €750, €1000 and €5000 was 0.707, 0.713, 0.716, 0.718, 0.722 and 0.784, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the evidence presented, SPRM/CDSS is likely to be determined to be cost effective compared with usual pharmaceutical care. However, neither incremental costs nor effects demonstrated a statistically significant difference, therefore the results of this single-site study should be interpreted with caution.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: A recent cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) conducted in an Irish hospital evaluating a structured pharmacist review of medication (SPRM), supported by computerised clinical decision support software (CDSS), demonstrated positive outcomes in terms of reduction of adverse drug reactions (ADR). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the cost effectiveness of pharmacists applying an SPRM in conjunction with CDSS to older hospitalised patients compared with usual pharmaceutical care. METHOD: Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a cluster RCT. The trial was conducted in a tertiary hospital in the south of Ireland. Patients in the intervention arm (n = 361) received a multifactorial intervention consisting of medicines reconciliation, deployment of CDSS and generation of a pharmaceutical care plan. Patients in the control arm (n = 376) received usual care from the hospital pharmacy team. Incremental cost effectiveness was examined in terms of costs to the healthcare system and an outcome measure of ADRs during an inpatient hospital stay. Uncertainty in the analysis was explored using a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC). RESULTS: On average, the intervention arm was the dominant strategy in terms of cost effectiveness. Compared with usual care (control), the intervention was associated with a decrease of €807 [95% confidence interval (CI) -3443 to 1829; p = 0.548) in mean healthcare cost, and a decrease in the mean number of ADR events per patient of -0.064 (95% CI -0.135 to 0.008; p = 0.081). The probability of the intervention being cost effective at respective threshold values of €0, €250, €500, €750, €1000 and €5000 was 0.707, 0.713, 0.716, 0.718, 0.722 and 0.784, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the evidence presented, SPRM/CDSS is likely to be determined to be cost effective compared with usual pharmaceutical care. However, neither incremental costs nor effects demonstrated a statistically significant difference, therefore the results of this single-site study should be interpreted with caution.
Authors: Marie A Chisholm-Burns; Joshua S Graff Zivin; Jeannie Kim Lee; Christina A Spivey; Marion Slack; Richard N Herrier; Elizabeth Hall-Lipsy; Ivo Abraham; John Palmer Journal: Am J Health Syst Pharm Date: 2010-10-01 Impact factor: 2.637
Authors: Katherine S Panageas; Deborah Schrag; A Russell Localio; E S Venkatraman; Colin B Begg Journal: Stat Med Date: 2007-04-30 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: David O'Sullivan; Denis O'Mahony; Marie N O'Connor; Paul Gallagher; Shane Cullinan; Richard O'Sullivan; James Gallagher; Joseph Eustace; Stephen Byrne Journal: Drugs Aging Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 3.923
Authors: E Delgado-Silveira; M Vélez-Díaz-Pallarés; M Muñoz-García; A Correa-Pérez; A M Álvarez-Díaz; A J Cruz-Jentoft Journal: Eur Geriatr Med Date: 2021-05-07 Impact factor: 1.710
Authors: Erinn D'hulster; Charlotte Quintens; Jeroen Luyten; Raf Bisschops; Rik Willems; Willy E Peetermans; Jan Y Verbakel Journal: Int J Clin Pharm Date: 2022-01-11
Authors: Gary L O'Brien; Denis O'Mahony; Paddy Gillespie; Mark Mulcahy; Valerie Walshe; Marie N O'Connor; David O'Sullivan; James Gallagher; Stephen Byrne Journal: Drugs Aging Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 3.923
Authors: Kaveh G Shojania; Alison Jennings; Alain Mayhew; Craig R Ramsay; Martin P Eccles; Jeremy Grimshaw Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2009-07-08