scholarly journals Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of issuing longer versus shorter duration (3-month vs. 28-day) prescriptions in patients with chronic conditions: systematic review and economic modelling

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (78) ◽  
pp. 1-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Céline Miani ◽  
Adam Martin ◽  
Josephine Exley ◽  
Brett Doble ◽  
Ed Wilson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Chronic Conditions ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Study ◽  
Clinical Scenarios ◽  
Retrospective Cohort Studies ◽  
The Cost

BackgroundTo reduce expenditure on, and wastage of, drugs, some commissioners have encouraged general practitioners to issue shorter prescriptions, typically 28 days in length; however, the evidence base for this recommendation is uncertain.ObjectiveTo evaluate the evidence of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of shorter versus longer prescriptions for people with stable chronic conditions treated in primary care.Design/data sourcesThe design of the study comprised three elements. First, a systematic review comparing 28-day prescriptions with longer prescriptions in patients with chronic conditions treated in primary care, evaluating any relevant clinical outcomes, adherence to treatment, costs and cost-effectiveness. Databases searched included MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Searches were from database inception to October 2015 (updated search to June 2016 in PubMed). Second, a cost analysis of medication wastage associated with < 60-day and ≥ 60-day prescriptions for five patient cohorts over an 11-year period from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Third, a decision model adapting three existing models to predict costs and effects of differing adherence levels associated with 28-day versus 3-month prescriptions in three clinical scenarios.Review methodsIn the systematic review, from 15,257 unique citations, 54 full-text papers were reviewed and 16 studies were included, five of which were abstracts and one of which was an extended conference abstract. None was a randomised controlled trial: 11 were retrospective cohort studies, three were cross-sectional surveys and two were cost studies. No information on health outcomes was available.ResultsAn exploratory meta-analysis based on six retrospective cohort studies suggested that lower adherence was associated with 28-day prescriptions (standardised mean difference –0.45, 95% confidence interval –0.65 to –0.26). The cost analysis showed that a statistically significant increase in medication waste was associated with longer prescription lengths. However, when accounting for dispensing fees and prescriber time, longer prescriptions were found to be cost saving compared with shorter prescriptions. Prescriber time was the largest component of the calculated cost savings to the NHS. The decision modelling suggested that, in all three clinical scenarios, longer prescription lengths were associated with lower costs and higher quality-adjusted life-years.LimitationsThe available evidence was found to be at a moderate to serious risk of bias. All of the studies were conducted in the USA, which was a cause for concern in terms of generalisability to the UK. No evidence of the direct impact of prescription length on health outcomes was found. The cost study could investigate prescriptions issued only; it could not assess patient adherence to those prescriptions. Additionally, the cost study was based on products issued only and did not account for underlying patient diagnoses. A lack of good-quality evidence affected our decision modelling strategy.ConclusionsAlthough the quality of the evidence was poor, this study found that longer prescriptions may be less costly overall, and may be associated with better adherence than 28-day prescriptions in patients with chronic conditions being treated in primary care.Future workThere is a need to more reliably evaluate the impact of differing prescription lengths on adherence, on patient health outcomes and on total costs to the NHS. The priority should be to identify patients with particular conditions or characteristics who should receive shorter or longer prescriptions. To determine the need for any further research, an expected value of perfect information analysis should be performed.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015027042.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

scholarly journals Exploring the cost-effectiveness of a Dutch collaborative stepped care intervention for the treatment of depression and/or anxiety when adapted to the Australian context: a model-based cost-utility analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. Y. Lee ◽  
M. G. Harris ◽  
H. A. Whiteford ◽  
S. K. Davidson ◽  
M. L. Chatterton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Stepped Care ◽  
Primary Care Settings ◽  
Self Help ◽  
Australian Context ◽  
Treatment Of Depression ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Aims Depression and anxiety are among the most common mental health conditions treated in primary care. They frequently co-occur and involve recommended treatments that overlap. Evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) shows specific stepped care interventions to be cost-effective in improving symptom remission. However, most RCTs have focused on either depression or anxiety, which limits their generalisability to routine primary care settings. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a collaborative stepped care (CSC) intervention to treat depression and/or anxiety among adults in Australian primary care settings. Method A quasi-decision tree model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a CSC intervention relative to care-as-usual (CAU). The model adapted a CSC intervention described in a previous Dutch RCT to the Australian context. This 8-month, cluster RCT recruited patients with depression and/or anxiety (n = 158) from 30 primary care clinics in the Netherlands. The CSC intervention involved two steps: (1) guided self-help with a nurse at a primary care clinic; and (2) referral to specialised mental healthcare. The cost-effectiveness model adopted a health sector perspective and synthesised data from two main sources: RCT data on intervention pathways, remission probabilities and healthcare service utilisation; and Australia-specific data on demography, epidemiology and unit costs from external sources. Incremental costs and incremental health outcomes were estimated across a 1-year time horizon. Health outcomes were measured as disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) due to remitted cases of depression and/or anxiety. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured in 2019 Australian dollars (A$) per DALY averted. Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of cost-effectiveness findings. Result The CSC intervention had a high probability (99.6%) of being cost-effective relative to CAU. The resulting ICER (A$5207/DALY; 95% uncertainty interval: dominant to 25 345) fell below the willingness-to-pay threshold of A$50 000/DALY. ICERs were robust to changes in model parameters and assumptions. Conclusions This study found that a Dutch CSC intervention, with nurse-delivered guided self-help treatment as a first step, could potentially be cost-effective in treating depression and/or anxiety if transferred to the Australian primary care context. However, adaptations may be required to ensure feasibility and acceptability in the Australian healthcare context. In addition, further evidence is needed to verify the real-world cost-effectiveness of the CSC intervention when implemented in routine practice and to evaluate its effectiveness/cost-effectiveness when compared to other viable stepped care interventions for the treatment of depression and/or anxiety.

How cost-effective is nutrition care delivered in primary healthcare settings? A systematic review of trial-based economic evaluations

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katelyn A Barnes ◽  
Zoe Szewczyk ◽  
Jaimon T Kelly ◽  
Katrina L Campbell ◽  
Lauren E Ball
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Outcome Variable ◽  
Primary Care Settings ◽  
Nutrition Care ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Context Nutrition care is an effective lifestyle intervention for the treatment and prevention of many noncommunicable diseases. Primary care is a high-value setting in which to provide nutrition care. Objective The objective of this review was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nutrition care interventions provided in primary care settings. Data Sources Medline, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EconLit, and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) were searched from inception to May 2021. Data Extraction Data extraction was guided by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) reporting guidelines. Randomized trials of nutrition interventions in primary care settings were included in the analysis if incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were reported. The main outcome variable incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and reported interpretations were used to categorize interventions by the cost-effectiveness plane quadrant. Results Of 6837 articles identified, 10 were included (representing 9 studies). Eight of the 9 included studies found nutrition care in primary care settings to be more costly and more effective than usual care . High study heterogeneity limited further conclusions. Conclusion Nutrition care in primary care settings is effective, though it requires investment; it should, therefore, be considered in primary care planning. Further studies are needed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of providing nutrition care in primary care settings. Systematic review registration PROSPERO registration no. CRD42020201146.

scholarly journals The feasibility of determining the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of medication organisation devices compared with usual care for older people in a community setting: systematic review, stakeholder focus groups and feasibility randomised controlled trial

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (50) ◽  
pp. 1-250 ◽  
Author(s):  
Debi Bhattacharya ◽  
Clare F Aldus ◽  
Garry Barton ◽  
Christine M Bond ◽  
Sathon Boonyaprapa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BackgroundMedication organisation devices (MODs) provide compartments for a patient’s medication to be organised into the days of the week and the recommended times the medication should be taken.AimTo define the optimal trial design for testing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of MODs.DesignThe feasibility study comprised a systematic review and focus groups to inform a randomised controlled trial (RCT) design. The resulting features were tested on a small scale, using a 2 × 2 factorial design to compare MODs with usual packaging and to compare weekly with monthly supply. The study design was then evaluated.SettingPotential participants were identified by medical practices.ParticipantsAged over 75 years, prescribed at least three solid oral dosage form medications, unintentionally non-adherent and self-medicating. Participants were excluded if deemed by their health-care team to be unsuitable.InterventionsOne of three MODs widely used in routine clinical practice supplied either weekly or monthly.ObjectivesTo identify the most effective method of participant recruitment, to estimate the prevalence of intentional and unintentional non-adherence in an older population, to provide a point estimate of the effect size of MODs relative to usual care and to determine the feasibility and acceptability of trial participation.MethodsThe systematic review included MOD studies of any design reporting medication adherence, health and social outcomes, resource utilisation or dispensing or administration errors. Focus groups with patients, carers and health-care professionals supplemented the systematic review to inform the RCT design. The resulting design was implemented and then evaluated through questionnaires and group discussions with participants and health-care professionals involved in trial delivery.ResultsStudies on MODs are largely of poor quality. The relationship between adherence and health outcomes is unclear. Of the limited studies reporting health outcomes, some reported a positive relationship while some reported increased hospitalisations associated with MODs. The pre-trial focus groups endorsed the planned study design, but suggested a minimum recruitment age of 50–60 years. A total of 35.4% of patients completing the baseline questionnaire were excluded because they already used a MOD. Active recruitment yielded a higher consent rate, but passive recruitment was more cost-effective. The prevalence of intentional non-adherence was 24.7% [n = 71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 19.7% to 29.6%] of participants. Of the remaining 76 participants, 46.1% (95% CI 34.8% to 57.3%) were unintentionally non-adherent. There was no indication of a difference in adherence between the study arms. Participants reported a high level of satisfaction with the design. Five adverse/serious adverse events were identified in the MOD study arms and none was identified in the control arms. There was no discernible difference in health economic outcomes between the four study arms; the mean intervention cost was £20 per month greater for MOD monthly relative to usual supply monthly.ConclusionsMOD provision to unintentionally non-adherent older people may cause medication-related adverse events. The primary outcome for a definitive MOD trial should be health outcomes. Such a trial should recruit patients by postal invitation and recruit younger patients.Future workA study examining the association between MOD initiation and adverse effects is necessary and a strategy to safely introduce MODs should be explored. A definitive study testing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of MODs is also required.Study registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN 30626972 and UKCRN 12739.FundingThis project was funded by National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment Programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 50. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals The effectiveness of integrating clinical pharmacists within general practice to optimise prescribing and health outcomes in primary care patients with polypharmacy: A protocol for a systematic review

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 32
Author(s):  
Aisling Croke ◽  
Oscar James ◽  
Barbara Clyne ◽  
Frank Moriarty ◽  
Karen Cardwell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Health Economic ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Economic Studies

Introduction: Coordinating prescribing for patients with polypharmacy is a challenge for general practitioners. Pharmacists may improve management and outcomes for patients with polypharmacy. This systematic review aims to examine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of pharmacist interventions to optimise prescribing and improve health outcomes in patients with polypharmacy in primary care settings.  Methods: The review will be reported using the PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search of 10 databases from inception to present, with no language restrictions will be conducted. Studies will be included where they evaluate the clinical or cost-effectiveness of a clinical pharmacist in primary care on potentially inappropriate prescriptions using validated indicators and number of medicines. Secondary outcomes will include health related quality of life measures, health service utilisation, clinical outcomes and data relating to cost effectiveness. Randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before-after, interrupted-time-series and health economic studies will be eligible for inclusion.  Titles, abstracts and full texts will be screened for inclusion by two reviewers. Data will be extracted using a standard form. Risk of bias in all included studies will be assessed using the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) criteria. Economic studies will be assessed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list as per the Cochrane Handbook for critical appraisal of methodological quality. A narrative synthesis will be performed, and the certainty of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Where data support quantitative synthesis, a meta-analysis will be performed. Discussion: This systematic review will give an overview of the effectiveness of pharmacist interventions to improve prescribing and health outcomes in a vulnerable patient group. This will provide evidence to policy makers on strategies involving clinical pharmacists integrated within general practice, to address issues which arise in polypharmacy and multimorbidity.  PROSPERO Registration: CRD42019139679 (28/08/19)

scholarly journals The effectiveness of integrating clinical pharmacists within general practice to optimise prescribing and health outcomes in primary care patients with polypharmacy: A protocol for a systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 32
Author(s):  
Aisling Croke ◽  
Oscar James ◽  
Barbara Clyne ◽  
Frank Moriarty ◽  
Karen Cardwell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Health Economic ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Economic Studies

Introduction: Coordinating prescribing for patients with polypharmacy is a challenge for general practitioners. Pharmacists may improve management and outcomes for patients with polypharmacy. This systematic review aims to examine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of pharmacist interventions to optimise prescribing and improve health outcomes in patients with polypharmacy in primary care settings.  Methods: The review will be reported using the PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search of 10 databases from inception to present, with no language restrictions will be conducted. Studies will be included where they evaluate the clinical or cost-effectiveness of a clinical pharmacist in primary care on potentially inappropriate prescriptions using validated indicators and number of medicines. Secondary outcomes will include health related quality of life measures, health service utilisation, clinical outcomes and data relating to cost effectiveness. Randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before-after, interrupted-time-series and health economic studies will be eligible for inclusion.  Titles, abstracts and full texts will be screened for inclusion by two reviewers. Data will be extracted using a standard form. Risk of bias in all included studies will be assessed using the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) criteria. Economic studies will be assessed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list as per the Cochrane Handbook for critical appraisal of methodological quality. A narrative synthesis will be performed, and the certainty of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Where data support quantitative synthesis, a meta-analysis will be performed. Discussion: This systematic review will give an overview of the effectiveness of pharmacist interventions to improve prescribing and health outcomes in a vulnerable patient group. This will provide evidence to policy makers on strategies involving clinical pharmacists integrated within general practice, to address issues which arise in polypharmacy and multimorbidity.  PROSPERO Registration: CRD42019139679 (28/08/19)

scholarly journals Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of anogenital warts: systematic review and economic evaluation

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (24) ◽  
pp. 1-486 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Thurgar ◽  
Samantha Barton ◽  
Charlotta Karner ◽  
Steven J Edwards
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Economic Model ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Anogenital Warts ◽  
Ablative Techniques ◽  
The Cost

BackgroundTypically occurring on the external genitalia, anogenital warts (AGWs) are benign epithelial skin lesions caused by human papillomavirus infection. AGWs are usually painless but can be unsightly and physically uncomfortable, and affected people might experience psychological distress. The evidence base on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatments for AGWs is limited.ObjectivesTo systematically review the evidence on the clinical effectiveness of medical and surgical treatments for AGWs and to develop an economic model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the treatments.Data sourcesElectronic databases (MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library databases and Web of Science) were searched from inception (or January 2000 for Web of Science) to September 2014. Bibliographies of relevant systematic reviews were hand-searched to identify potentially relevant studies. The World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for ongoing and planned studies.Review methodsA systematic review of the clinical effectiveness literature was carried out according to standard methods and a mixed-treatment comparison (MTC) undertaken. The model implemented for each outcome was that with the lowest deviance information criterion. A de novo economic model was developed to assess cost-effectiveness from the perspective of the UK NHS. The model structure was informed through a systematic review of the economic literature and in consultation with clinical experts. Effectiveness data were obtained from the MTC. Costs were obtained from the literature and standard UK sources.ResultsOf 4232 titles and abstracts screened for inclusion in the review of clinical effectiveness, 60 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating 19 interventions were included. Analysis by MTC indicated that ablative techniques were typically more effective than topical interventions at completely clearing AGWs at the end of treatment. Podophyllotoxin 0.5% solution (Condyline®, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd; Warticon®solution, Stiefel Laboratories Ltd) was found to be the most effective topical treatment evaluated. Networks for other outcomes included fewer treatments, which restrict conclusions on the comparative effectiveness of interventions. In total, 84 treatment strategies were assessed using the economic model. Podophyllotoxin 0.5% solution first line followed by carbon dioxide (CO2) laser therapy second line if AGWs did not clear was most likely to be considered a cost-effective use of resources at a willingness to pay of £20,000–30,000 per additional quality-adjusted life-year gained. The result was robust to most sensitivity analyses conducted.LimitationsLimited reporting in identified studies of baseline characteristics for the enrolled population generates uncertainty around the comparability of the study populations and therefore the generalisability of the results to clinical practice. Subgroup analyses were planned based on type, number and size of AGWs, all of which are factors thought to influence treatment effect. Lack of data on clinical effectiveness based on these characteristics precluded analysis of the differential effects of treatments in the subgroups of interest. Despite identification of 60 studies, most comparisons in the MTC are informed by only one RCT. Additionally, lack of head-to-head RCTs comparing key treatments, together with minimal reporting of results in some studies, precluded comprehensive analysis of all treatments for AGWs.ConclusionsThe results generated by the MTC are in agreement with consensus opinion that ablative techniques are clinically more effective at completely clearing AGWs after treatment. However, the evidence base informing the MTC is limited. A head-to-head RCT that evaluates the comparative effectiveness of interventions used in clinical practice would help to discern the potential advantages and disadvantages of the individual treatments. The results of the economic analysis suggest that podophyllotoxin 0.5% solution is likely to represent a cost-effective first-line treatment option. More expensive effective treatments, such as CO2laser therapy or surgery, may represent cost-effective second-line treatment options. No treatment and podophyllin are unlikely to be considered cost-effective treatment options. There is uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness of treatment with imiquimod, trichloroacetic acid and cryotherapy.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005457.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document