Sónia Romano1,2, Débora Figueira3, Inês Teixeira3, Julian Perelman4,5. 1. Centre for Health Evaluation and Research/Infosaúde, National Association of Pharmacies (CEFAR-IF/ANF), Rua Marechal Saldanha 1, 1249-069, Lisbon, Portugal. sonia.romano@anf.pt. 2. Escola Nacional de Saúde Pública, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal. sonia.romano@anf.pt. 3. Centre for Health Evaluation and Research/Infosaúde, National Association of Pharmacies (CEFAR-IF/ANF), Rua Marechal Saldanha 1, 1249-069, Lisbon, Portugal. 4. Escola Nacional de Saúde Pública, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal. 5. Centro de Investigação em Saúde Pública, Lisbon, Portugal.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Deprescribing can reduce the use of inappropriate or unnecessary medication; however, the economic value of such interventions is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: This study seeks to identify and synthetise the economic evidence of deprescribing interventions among community-dwelling older adults. METHODS: Full economic evaluation studies of deprescribing interventions, conducted in the community or primary care settings, in community-dwelling adults aged ≥ 65 years were systematically reviewed. MEDLINE, EconLit, Scopus, Web of Science, CEA-TUFTS, CRD York and Google Scholar databases were searched from inception to February 2021. Two researchers independently screened all retrieved articles according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. The main outcome was the economic impact of the intervention from any perspective, converted into 2019 US Dollars. The World Health Organization threshold of 1 gross domestic product per capita was used to define cost effectiveness. Studies were appraised for methodological quality using the extended Consensus on Health Economics Criteria checklist. RESULTS: Of 6154 articles identified by the search strategy, 14 papers assessing 13 different interventions were included. Most deprescribing interventions included some type of medication review with or without a supportive educational component (n = 11, 85%), and in general were delivered within a pharmacist-physician care collaboration. Settings included community pharmacies, primary care/outpatient clinics and patients' homes. All economic evaluations were conducted within a time horizon varying from 2 to 12 months with outcomes in most of the studies derived from a single clinical trial. Main health outcomes were reported in terms of quality-adjusted life-years, prevented number of falls and the medication appropriateness index. Cost effectiveness ranged from dominant to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $112,932 per quality-adjusted life-year, a value above the country's World Health Organization threshold. Overall, 85% of the interventions were cost saving, dominated usual care or were cost effective considering 1 gross domestic product per capita. Nine studies scored > 80% (good) and two scored ≤ 50% (low) on critical quality appraisal. CONCLUSIONS: There is a growing interest in economic evaluations of deprescribing interventions focused on community-dwelling older adults. Although results varied across setting, time horizon and intervention, most were cost effective according to the World Health Organization threshold. Deprescribing interventions are promising from an economic viewpoint, but more studies are needed.
BACKGROUND: Deprescribing can reduce the use of inappropriate or unnecessary medication; however, the economic value of such interventions is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: This study seeks to identify and synthetise the economic evidence of deprescribing interventions among community-dwelling older adults. METHODS: Full economic evaluation studies of deprescribing interventions, conducted in the community or primary care settings, in community-dwelling adults aged ≥ 65 years were systematically reviewed. MEDLINE, EconLit, Scopus, Web of Science, CEA-TUFTS, CRD York and Google Scholar databases were searched from inception to February 2021. Two researchers independently screened all retrieved articles according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. The main outcome was the economic impact of the intervention from any perspective, converted into 2019 US Dollars. The World Health Organization threshold of 1 gross domestic product per capita was used to define cost effectiveness. Studies were appraised for methodological quality using the extended Consensus on Health Economics Criteria checklist. RESULTS: Of 6154 articles identified by the search strategy, 14 papers assessing 13 different interventions were included. Most deprescribing interventions included some type of medication review with or without a supportive educational component (n = 11, 85%), and in general were delivered within a pharmacist-physician care collaboration. Settings included community pharmacies, primary care/outpatient clinics and patients' homes. All economic evaluations were conducted within a time horizon varying from 2 to 12 months with outcomes in most of the studies derived from a single clinical trial. Main health outcomes were reported in terms of quality-adjusted life-years, prevented number of falls and the medication appropriateness index. Cost effectiveness ranged from dominant to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $112,932 per quality-adjusted life-year, a value above the country's World Health Organization threshold. Overall, 85% of the interventions were cost saving, dominated usual care or were cost effective considering 1 gross domestic product per capita. Nine studies scored > 80% (good) and two scored ≤ 50% (low) on critical quality appraisal. CONCLUSIONS: There is a growing interest in economic evaluations of deprescribing interventions focused on community-dwelling older adults. Although results varied across setting, time horizon and intervention, most were cost effective according to the World Health Organization threshold. Deprescribing interventions are promising from an economic viewpoint, but more studies are needed.
Authors: G E Gutowski; M O Chaney; N D Jones; R L Hamill; F A Davis; R D Miller Journal: Biochem Biophys Res Commun Date: 1973-03-17 Impact factor: 3.575
Authors: John R Beard; Alana Officer; Islene Araujo de Carvalho; Ritu Sadana; Anne Margriet Pot; Jean-Pierre Michel; Peter Lloyd-Sherlock; JoAnne E Epping-Jordan; G M E E Geeske Peeters; Wahyu Retno Mahanani; Jotheeswaran Amuthavalli Thiyagarajan; Somnath Chatterji Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-10-29 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Janine A Cooper; Cathal A Cadogan; Susan M Patterson; Ngaire Kerse; Marie C Bradley; Cristín Ryan; Carmel M Hughes Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-12-09 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Barbara Farrell; Kevin Pottie; Carlos H Rojas-Fernandez; Lise M Bjerre; Wade Thompson; Vivian Welch Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-08-12 Impact factor: 3.240