Yazid N Al Hamarneh1,2,3, Karissa Johnston1,2,3, Carlo A Marra1,2,3, Ross T Tsuyuki1,2,3. 1. Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry (Al Hamarneh, Tsuyuki), University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta. 2. Broadstreet Health Economics & Outcomes Research (Johnston), Vancouver, British Columbia. 3. the School of Pharmacy (Marra), University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The RxEACH randomized trial demonstrated that community pharmacist prescribing and care reduced the risk for cardiovascular (CV) events by 21% compared to usual care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the economic impact of pharmacist prescribing and care for CV risk reduction in a Canadian setting. METHODS: A Markov cost-effectiveness model was developed to extrapolate potential differences in long-term CV outcomes, using different risk assessment equations. The mean change in CV risk for the 2 groups of RxEACH was extrapolated over 30 years, with costs and health outcomes discounted at 1.5% per year. The model incorporated health outcomes, costs and quality of life to estimate overall cost-effectiveness. It was assumed that the intervention would be 50% effective after 10 years. Individual-level results were scaled up to population level based on published statistics (29.2% of Canadian adults are at high risk for CV events). Costs considered included direct medical costs as well as the costs associated with implementing the pharmacist intervention. Uncertainty was explored via probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: It is estimated that the Canadian health care system would save more than $4.4 billion over 30 years if the pharmacist intervention were delivered to 15% of the eligible population. Pharmacist care would be associated with a gain of 576,689 quality-adjusted life years and avoid more than 8.9 million CV events. The intervention is economically dominant (i.e., it is both more effective and reduces costs when compared to usual care). CONCLUSION: Across a range of 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses of key parameters and assumptions, pharmacist prescribing and care are both more effective and cost-saving compared to usual care. Canadians need and deserve such care.
BACKGROUND: The RxEACH randomized trial demonstrated that community pharmacist prescribing and care reduced the risk for cardiovascular (CV) events by 21% compared to usual care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the economic impact of pharmacist prescribing and care for CV risk reduction in a Canadian setting. METHODS: A Markov cost-effectiveness model was developed to extrapolate potential differences in long-term CV outcomes, using different risk assessment equations. The mean change in CV risk for the 2 groups of RxEACH was extrapolated over 30 years, with costs and health outcomes discounted at 1.5% per year. The model incorporated health outcomes, costs and quality of life to estimate overall cost-effectiveness. It was assumed that the intervention would be 50% effective after 10 years. Individual-level results were scaled up to population level based on published statistics (29.2% of Canadian adults are at high risk for CV events). Costs considered included direct medical costs as well as the costs associated with implementing the pharmacist intervention. Uncertainty was explored via probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: It is estimated that the Canadian health care system would save more than $4.4 billion over 30 years if the pharmacist intervention were delivered to 15% of the eligible population. Pharmacist care would be associated with a gain of 576,689 quality-adjusted life years and avoid more than 8.9 million CV events. The intervention is economically dominant (i.e., it is both more effective and reduces costs when compared to usual care). CONCLUSION: Across a range of 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses of key parameters and assumptions, pharmacist prescribing and care are both more effective and cost-saving compared to usual care. Canadians need and deserve such care.
Authors: David M Scott; Steven T Boyd; Michelle Stephan; Sam C Augustine; Thomas P Reardon Journal: Am J Health Syst Pharm Date: 2006-11-01 Impact factor: 2.637
Authors: Ross T Tsuyuki; Jeffrey A Johnson; Koon K Teo; Scot H Simpson; Margaret L Ackman; Rosemarie S Biggs; Andrew Cave; Wei-Ching Chang; Vladimir Dzavik; Karen B Farris; Donna Galvin; William Semchuk; Jeff G Taylor Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2002-05-27
Authors: Rury R Holman; Sanjoy K Paul; M Angelyn Bethel; David R Matthews; H Andrew W Neil Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-09-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ralph B D'Agostino; Ramachandran S Vasan; Michael J Pencina; Philip A Wolf; Mark Cobain; Joseph M Massaro; William B Kannel Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-01-22 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Judith D Bentkover; Edward J Stewart; Andrew Ignaszewski; Serge Lepage; Peter Liu; Jill Cooper Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Hadi A Almansour; Nouf M Aloudah; Tariq M Alhawassi; Betty Chaar; Ines Krass; Bandana Saini Journal: Explor Res Clin Soc Pharm Date: 2021-09-29
Authors: Hadi A Almansour; Nouf M Aloudah; Tariq M Alhawassi; Betty Chaar; Ines Krass; Bandana Saini Journal: Saudi Pharm J Date: 2020-03-18 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Yazid N Al Hamarneh; Carlo Marra; Robert Gniadecki; Stephanie Keeling; Andrea Morgan; Ross Tsuyuki Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-03-24 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Amy Grant; Liam Rowe; Natalie Kennie-Kaulbach; Andrea Bishop; Julia Kontak; Sam Stewart; Bobbi Morrison; Ingrid Sketris; Glenn Rodrigues; Laura Minard; Anne Marie Whelan; Lisa Woodill; Elizabeth Jeffers; Judith Fisher; Juanna Ricketts; Jennifer E Isenor Journal: Res Social Adm Pharm Date: 2022-08-20