Gary L O'Brien1, Denis O'Mahony2,3, Paddy Gillespie4, Mark Mulcahy5, Valerie Walshe6, Marie N O'Connor2,3, David O'Sullivan7, James Gallagher7, Stephen Byrne8. 1. Pharmaceutical Care Research Group, School of Pharmacy, Cavanagh Pharmacy Building, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland. gary_obrien@umail.ucc.ie. 2. School of Medicine, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Brookfield Complex, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland. 3. Department of Geriatric Medicine, Cork University Hospital, Wilton, Cork, Ireland. 4. J.E. Cairnes School of Business and Economics, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland. 5. Department of Accounting, Finance and Information Systems, Cork University Business School, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland. 6. National Finance Division, Health Service Executive, Model Business Park, Model Farm Road, Cork, Ireland. 7. Pharmaceutical Care Research Group, School of Pharmacy, Cavanagh Pharmacy Building, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland. 8. Pharmaceutical Care Research Group, School of Pharmacy, Cavanagh Pharmacy Building, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland. stephen.byrne@ucc.ie.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A recent randomised controlled trial conducted in an Irish University teaching hospital that evaluated a physician-implemented medication screening tool, demonstrated positive outcomes in terms of a reduction in incident adverse drug reactions. OBJECTIVE: The present study objective was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of physicians applying this screening tool to older hospitalised patients compared with usual hospital care in the context of the earlier randomised controlled trial. METHOD: We used a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a conventional outcome analysis in a cluster randomised controlled trial. Patients in the intervention arm (n = 360) received a multifactorial intervention consisting of medicines reconciliation, communication with patients' senior medical team, and generation of a pharmaceutical care plan in addition to usual medical and pharmaceutical care. Control arm patients (n = 372) received usual medical and pharmaceutical care only. Incremental cost effectiveness was examined in terms of costs to the healthcare system and an outcome measure of adverse drug reactions during inpatient hospital stay. Uncertainty in the analysis was explored using a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. RESULTS: On average, the intervention arm was more costly but was also more effective. Compared with usual care (control), the intervention was associated with a non-statistically significant increase of €877 (95% confidence interval - €1807, €3561) in the mean healthcare cost, and a statistically significant decrease of - 0.164 (95% confidence interval - 0.257, - 0.070) in the mean number of adverse drug reaction events per patient. The associated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per adverse drug reaction averted was €5358. The probability of the intervention being cost effective at threshold values of €0, €5000 and €10,000 was 0.236, 0.455 and 0.680, respectively. CONCLUSION: Based on the evidence presented, this physician-led intervention is not likely to be cost effective compared with usual hospital care. To inform future healthcare policy decisions in this field, more economic analyses of structured medication reviews by other healthcare professionals and by computerised clinical decision support software need to be conducted.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: A recent randomised controlled trial conducted in an Irish University teaching hospital that evaluated a physician-implemented medication screening tool, demonstrated positive outcomes in terms of a reduction in incident adverse drug reactions. OBJECTIVE: The present study objective was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of physicians applying this screening tool to older hospitalised patients compared with usual hospital care in the context of the earlier randomised controlled trial. METHOD: We used a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a conventional outcome analysis in a cluster randomised controlled trial. Patients in the intervention arm (n = 360) received a multifactorial intervention consisting of medicines reconciliation, communication with patients' senior medical team, and generation of a pharmaceutical care plan in addition to usual medical and pharmaceutical care. Control arm patients (n = 372) received usual medical and pharmaceutical care only. Incremental cost effectiveness was examined in terms of costs to the healthcare system and an outcome measure of adverse drug reactions during inpatient hospital stay. Uncertainty in the analysis was explored using a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. RESULTS: On average, the intervention arm was more costly but was also more effective. Compared with usual care (control), the intervention was associated with a non-statistically significant increase of €877 (95% confidence interval - €1807, €3561) in the mean healthcare cost, and a statistically significant decrease of - 0.164 (95% confidence interval - 0.257, - 0.070) in the mean number of adverse drug reaction events per patient. The associated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per adverse drug reaction averted was €5358. The probability of the intervention being cost effective at threshold values of €0, €5000 and €10,000 was 0.236, 0.455 and 0.680, respectively. CONCLUSION: Based on the evidence presented, this physician-led intervention is not likely to be cost effective compared with usual hospital care. To inform future healthcare policy decisions in this field, more economic analyses of structured medication reviews by other healthcare professionals and by computerised clinical decision support software need to be conducted.
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: Hanna Gyllensten; Anna K Jönsson; Katja M Hakkarainen; Staffan Svensson; Staffan Hägg; Clas Rehnberg Journal: Value Health Date: 2017-07-25 Impact factor: 5.725
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: C Trivalle; T Cartier; C Verny; A-M Mathieu; P Davrinche; H Agostini; L Becquemont; P Demolis Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Emma C Davies; Christopher F Green; Stephen Taylor; Paula R Williamson; David R Mottram; Munir Pirmohamed Journal: PLoS One Date: 2009-02-11 Impact factor: 3.240
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