Amaia Malet-Larrea1, Estíbaliz Goyenechea2, Miguel A Gastelurrutia3, Begoña Calvo4, Victoria García-Cárdenas5, Juan M Cabases6, Aránzazu Noain3, Fernando Martínez-Martínez3, Daniel Sabater-Hernández3,5, Shalom I Benrimoj5. 1. Pharmaceutical Technology Department, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of the Basque Country, P. Universidad 7, 01006, Vitoria, Spain. amaia.malet@ehu.eus. 2. Official Pharmacist Association of Guipúzcoa, Prim 2, 20006, San Sebastián, Spain. 3. Pharmaceutical Care Research Group, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Granada, Campus Universitario de Cartuja, 18071, Granada, Spain. 4. Pharmaceutical Technology Department, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of the Basque Country, P. Universidad 7, 01006, Vitoria, Spain. 5. Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, 15 Broadway, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia. 6. Department of Economics, Public University of Navarra, Campus Arrosadía, 31006, Pamplona, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Drug related problems have a significant clinical and economic burden on patients and the healthcare system. Medication review with follow-up (MRF) is a professional pharmacy service aimed at improving patient's health outcomes through an optimization of the medication. OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the economic impact of the MRF service provided in community pharmacies to aged polypharmacy patients comparing MRF with usual care, by undertaking a cost analysis and a cost-benefit analysis. METHODS: The economic evaluation was based on a cluster randomized controlled trial. Patients in the intervention group (IG) received the MRF service and the comparison group (CG) received usual care. The analysis was conducted from the national health system (NHS) perspective over 6 months. Direct medical costs were included and expressed in euros at 2014 prices. Health benefits were estimated by assigning a monetary value to the quality-adjusted life years. One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis was undertaken in order to analyse the uncertainty. RESULTS: The analysis included 1403 patients (IG: n = 688 vs CG: n = 715). The cost analysis showed that the MRF saved 97 € per patient in 6 months. Extrapolating data to 1 year and assuming a fee for service of 22 € per patient-month, the estimated savings were 273 € per patient-year. The cost-benefit ratio revealed that for every 1 € invested in MRF, a benefit of 3.3 € to 6.2 € was obtained. CONCLUSION: The MRF provided health benefits to patients and substantial cost savings to the NHS. Investment in this service would represent an efficient use of healthcare resources.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Drug related problems have a significant clinical and economic burden on patients and the healthcare system. Medication review with follow-up (MRF) is a professional pharmacy service aimed at improving patient's health outcomes through an optimization of the medication. OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the economic impact of the MRF service provided in community pharmacies to aged polypharmacy patients comparing MRF with usual care, by undertaking a cost analysis and a cost-benefit analysis. METHODS: The economic evaluation was based on a cluster randomized controlled trial. Patients in the intervention group (IG) received the MRF service and the comparison group (CG) received usual care. The analysis was conducted from the national health system (NHS) perspective over 6 months. Direct medical costs were included and expressed in euros at 2014 prices. Health benefits were estimated by assigning a monetary value to the quality-adjusted life years. One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis was undertaken in order to analyse the uncertainty. RESULTS: The analysis included 1403 patients (IG: n = 688 vs CG: n = 715). The cost analysis showed that the MRF saved 97 € per patient in 6 months. Extrapolating data to 1 year and assuming a fee for service of 22 € per patient-month, the estimated savings were 273 € per patient-year. The cost-benefit ratio revealed that for every 1 € invested in MRF, a benefit of 3.3 € to 6.2 € was obtained. CONCLUSION: The MRF provided health benefits to patients and substantial cost savings to the NHS. Investment in this service would represent an efficient use of healthcare resources.
Authors: S I Benrimoj; J H Langford; G Berry; D Collins; R Lauchlan; K Stewart; M Aristides; M Dobson Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Glen T Schumock; Melissa G Butler; Patrick D Meek; Lee C Vermeulen; Bhakti V Arondekar; Jerry L Bauman Journal: Pharmacotherapy Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 4.705
Authors: Amanda Brummel; Adam Lustig; Kimberly Westrich; Michael A Evans; Gary S Plank; Jerry Penso; Robert W Dubois Journal: J Manag Care Spec Pharm Date: 2014-12
Authors: Carlos Chiatti; Silvia Bustacchini; Gianluca Furneri; Lorenzo Mantovani; Marco Cristiani; Clementina Misuraca; Fabrizia Lattanzio Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Dalia M Dawoud; Alexander Haines; David Wonderling; Joanna Ashe; Jennifer Hill; Mihir Varia; Philip Dyer; Julian Bion Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Mohanad Odeh; Claire Scullin; Glenda Fleming; Michael G Scott; Robert Horne; James C McElnay Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2019-01-24 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: R Varas-Doval; L Saéz-Benito; M A Gastelurrutia; S I Benrimoj; V Garcia-Cardenas; F Martinez-Martínez Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2021-02-17 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: M Kurczewska-Michalak; P Lewek; B Jankowska-Polańska; A Giardini; N Granata; M Maffoni; E Costa; L Midão; P Kardas Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2021-11-26 Impact factor: 5.810