Mireia Massot Mesquida1,2, Frans Folkvord3,4, Gemma Seda5,6, Francisco Lupiáñez-Villanueva4,7, Pere Torán Monserrat5,6. 1. Servei d'Atenció Primària Vallès Occidental, Direcció d'Atenció Primària Metropolitana Nord. Institut Català de la Salut. Sabadell, Barcelona, Spain. mmassot.mn.ics@gencat.cat. 2. Grup de Recerca Multidisciplinar en Salut i Societat (GREMSAS), accredited by AGAUR (2017 SGR 917), Barcelona, Spain. mmassot.mn.ics@gencat.cat. 3. Tilburg School of Humanities and Digital Sciences, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands. 4. Open Evidence Research, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain. 5. Grup de Recerca Multidisciplinar en Salut i Societat (GREMSAS), accredited by AGAUR (2017 SGR 917), Barcelona, Spain. 6. Unitat de Suport a la Recerca Metropolitana Nord, Institut Universitari d'Investigació en Atenció Primària Jordi Gol (IDIAP Jordi Gol), Mataró, Barcelona, Spain. 7. Department of Information and Communication Sciences, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Growing evidence shows the effects of psychotropic drugs on the evolution of dementia. Until now, only a few studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of psychotropic drugs in institutionalized dementia patients. This study aims to assess the cost-utility of intervention performed in the metropolitan area of Barcelona (Spain) (MN) based on consensus between specialized caregivers involved in the management of dementia patients for optimizing and potentially reducing the prescription of inappropriate psychotropic drugs in this population. This analysis was conducted using the Monitoring and Assessment Framework for the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (MAFEIP) tool. METHODS: The MAFEIP tool builds up from a variety of surrogate endpoints commonly used across different studies in order to estimate health and economic outcomes in terms of incremental changes in quality adjusted life years (QALYs), as well as health and social care utilization. Cost estimates are based on scientific literature and expert opinion; they are direct costs and include medical visits, hospital care, medical tests and exams and drugs administered, among other concepts. The healthcare costs of patients using the intervention were calculated by means of a medication review that compared patients' drug-related costs before, during and after the use of the intervention conducted in MN between 2012 and 2014. The cost-utility analysis was performed from the perspective of a health care system with a time horizon of 12 months. RESULTS: The tool calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the intervention, revealing it to be dominant, or rather, better (more effective) and cheaper than the current (standard) care. The ICER of the intervention was in the lower right quadrant, making it an intervention that is always accepted even with the lowest given Willingness to Pay (WTP) threshold value (€15,000). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study show that the intervention was dominant, or rather, better (more effective) and cheaper than the current (standard) care. This dominant intervention is therefore recommended to interested investors for systematic application.
BACKGROUND: Growing evidence shows the effects of psychotropic drugs on the evolution of dementia. Until now, only a few studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of psychotropic drugs in institutionalized dementiapatients. This study aims to assess the cost-utility of intervention performed in the metropolitan area of Barcelona (Spain) (MN) based on consensus between specialized caregivers involved in the management of dementiapatients for optimizing and potentially reducing the prescription of inappropriate psychotropic drugs in this population. This analysis was conducted using the Monitoring and Assessment Framework for the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (MAFEIP) tool. METHODS: The MAFEIP tool builds up from a variety of surrogate endpoints commonly used across different studies in order to estimate health and economic outcomes in terms of incremental changes in quality adjusted life years (QALYs), as well as health and social care utilization. Cost estimates are based on scientific literature and expert opinion; they are direct costs and include medical visits, hospital care, medical tests and exams and drugs administered, among other concepts. The healthcare costs of patients using the intervention were calculated by means of a medication review that compared patients' drug-related costs before, during and after the use of the intervention conducted in MN between 2012 and 2014. The cost-utility analysis was performed from the perspective of a health care system with a time horizon of 12 months. RESULTS: The tool calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the intervention, revealing it to be dominant, or rather, better (more effective) and cheaper than the current (standard) care. The ICER of the intervention was in the lower right quadrant, making it an intervention that is always accepted even with the lowest given Willingness to Pay (WTP) threshold value (€15,000). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study show that the intervention was dominant, or rather, better (more effective) and cheaper than the current (standard) care. This dominant intervention is therefore recommended to interested investors for systematic application.
Authors: Klaas van der Spek; Raymond T C M Koopmans; Martin Smalbrugge; Marjorie H J M G Nelissen-Vrancken; Roland B Wetzels; Claudia H W Smeets; Erica de Vries; Steven Teerenstra; Sytse U Zuidema; Debby L Gerritsen Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: Floor Willeboordse; François G Schellevis; Sek Hung Chau; Jacqueline G Hugtenburg; Petra J M Elders Journal: Fam Pract Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 2.267
Authors: Francisco Jódar-Sánchez; Amaia Malet-Larrea; José J Martín; Leticia García-Mochón; M Puerto López Del Amo; Fernando Martínez-Martínez; Miguel A Gastelurrutia-Garralda; Victoria García-Cárdenas; Daniel Sabater-Hernández; Loreto Sáez-Benito; Shalom I Benrimoj Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Amna Al-Hashar; Ibrahim Al-Zakwani; Tommy Eriksson; Alaa Sarakbi; Badriya Al-Zadjali; Saif Al Mubaihsi; Mohammed Al Za'abi Journal: Int J Clin Pharm Date: 2018-05-12
Authors: Susan M Patterson; Carmel M Hughes; Grainne Crealey; Chris Cardwell; Kate L Lapane Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2009-12-09 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Juanita L Westbury; Peter Gee; Tristan Ling; Donnamay T Brown; Katherine H Franks; Ivan Bindoff; Aidan Bindoff; Gregory M Peterson Journal: Med J Aust Date: 2018-05-14 Impact factor: 7.738