Literature DB >> 33472819

Pharmacists' considerations on non-medical switching at the hospital: a systematic review of the economic outcomes of cost-saving therapeutic drug classes.

Marko Krstic1,2, Jean-Christophe Alain Devaud2, Farshid Sadeghipour3,2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Non-medical switching (NMS) strategies have the capacity to reduce overall costs in hospitals while maintaining a high level of care. However, the most appropriate diseases and/or medicines for NMS strategies are still vague. The aim of this review was to give a state-of-the-art summary regarding the economic outcomes resulting from the use of NMS strategies and to discuss whether they would be implementable in a hospital inpatient setting.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in Medline, Embase, and ScienceDirect. Studies published between 1988 and 2018 were included if they evaluated the economic impact of NMS strategies or if they performed an economic evaluation between two drugs. Studies regarding antineoplastic agents, endocrine therapies, and immunostimulants, or immunosuppressants, and biosimilars were excluded.
RESULTS: Fifty (69%) studies assessing an NMS strategy and 22 (31%) studies comparing two medicines were allocated to four categories: prospective studies (n=8, 11%); retrospective chart reviews (n=29, 40%); retrospective claims analysis (n=13, 18%); and retrospective data analysis (n=22, 31%). Hypercholesterolemia, peptic ulcer, and gastro-oesophageal reflux diseases, diabetes mellitus, and venous thromboembolism were the most prevalent diseases in studies evaluating an NMS strategy. Sixty-eight per cent of the included papers reported a reduction in costs with no significant changes in health outcomes and 8 per cent reported a deterioration in health outcomes and/or increased costs.
CONCLUSION: Regardless of the exclusion of studies regarding biologics or medicines used in oncology, the review highlights that NMS strategies with medicines whose management do not require a thorough clinical assessment were associated with reduced costs and no significant changes in patients' health outcomes, in the inpatient setting. NMS strategies targeting medicines that require an extensive clinical assessment should be evaluated using hospital-specific effectiveness and/or utility data prior to their implementation. © European Association of Hospital Pharmacists 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Entities:  

Keywords:  drug substitution; economics; health care rationing; hospital; medication systems; pharmaceutical; pharmacy service

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33472819      PMCID: PMC8640421          DOI: 10.1136/ejhpharm-2020-002652

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Hosp Pharm        ISSN: 2047-9956


  29 in total

1.  Therapeutic management of uncomplicated gastroesophageal reflux disease in france in 2005: Potential cost savings of omeprazole substitution.

Authors:  Stéphane Mouly; Agnès Charlemagne; Philippe Lejeunne; Francis Fagnani
Journal:  Curr Ther Res Clin Exp       Date:  2009-08

Review 2.  Impact of non-medical switching on clinical and economic outcomes, resource utilization and medication-taking behavior: a systematic literature review.

Authors:  Elaine Nguyen; Erin R Weeda; Diana M Sobieraj; Brahim K Bookhart; Catherine Tak Piech; Craig I Coleman
Journal:  Curr Med Res Opin       Date:  2016-04-01       Impact factor: 2.580

3.  Estimation of Potential Savings Through Therapeutic Substitution.

Authors:  Michael E Johansen; Caroline Richardson
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2016-06-01       Impact factor: 21.873

4.  Economic impact of switching from valsartan to other angiotensin receptor blockers in patients with hypertension.

Authors:  J Signorovitch; J Zhang; E Q Wu; D Latremouille-Viau; A P Yu; H B Dastani; K H Kahler
Journal:  Curr Med Res Opin       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 2.580

5.  Effect of pravastatin-to-simvastatin conversion on low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol.

Authors:  M K Ito; J C Lin; A P Morreale; D B Marcus; R Shabetai; T R Dresselhaus; R R Henry
Journal:  Am J Health Syst Pharm       Date:  2001-09-15       Impact factor: 2.637

6.  Comparative dose efficacy study of atorvastatin versus simvastatin, pravastatin, lovastatin, and fluvastatin in patients with hypercholesterolemia (the CURVES study)

Authors:  P Jones; S Kafonek; I Laurora; D Hunninghake
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  1998-03-01       Impact factor: 2.778

7.  Cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir versus insulin glargine for Thai type 2 diabetes from a payer's perspective.

Authors:  Unchalee Permsuwan; Kednapa Thavorn; Piyameth Dilokthornsakul; Surasak Saokaew; Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk
Journal:  J Med Econ       Date:  2017-07-11       Impact factor: 2.448

8.  Comparison of the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin, simvastatin, and pravastatin across doses (STELLAR* Trial).

Authors:  Peter H Jones; Michael H Davidson; Evan A Stein; Harold E Bays; James M McKenney; Elinor Miller; Valerie A Cain; James W Blasetto
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  2003-07-15       Impact factor: 2.778

9.  The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-07-21

Review 10.  Promoting effective transitions of care at hospital discharge: a review of key issues for hospitalists.

Authors:  Sunil Kripalani; Amy T Jackson; Jeffrey L Schnipper; Eric A Coleman
Journal:  J Hosp Med       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 2.960

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.