Search

Background Drug-related problems (DRP) following hospital discharge may cause morbidity, mortality and hospital re-admissions. It is unclear whether a clinical medication review (CMR) and counseling at discharge is a cost-effective method to reduce DRP. Objective To assess the effect of a CMR on health care utilization and to investigate whether CMR is a cost-effective method to reduce DRP in older polypharmacy patients discharged from hospital. Setting 24 community pharmacies in the Netherlands. Method A cluster-randomized controlled trial with an economic evaluation. Community pharmacies were randomized to those providing a CMR, counseling and follow-up at discharge and those providing usual care. Main outcome measures Change in the number of DRP after 1 year of follow-up and costs of health care utilization during follow-up. In 216 patients the use of health care was prospectively assessed. Missing data on effects and costs were imputed using multiple imputation techniques. Bootstrapping techniques were used to estimate the uncertainty around the differences in costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Results CMR resulted in a small reduction of DRP. The proportion of patients readmitted to the hospital during 6 months of follow-up was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group (46.4 vs. 20.9%; p < 0.05). Health care costs were higher in the intervention group, although not statistically significant. The costs of reducing one DRP by a CMR amounted to €8270. Conclusion A CMR in vulnerable older patients at hospital discharge led to a small reduction in DRP. Because of a significantly higher use of health care and higher number of re-hospitalisations post CMR, the present study data indicate that performing the intervention in this patient population is not cost-effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Medication-related adverse events (MRAEs) form a large proportion of all adverse events in hospitalized patients and are associated with considerable preventable harm. Detailed information on harm related to drugs administered during hospitalization is scarce. Knowledge of the nature and preventability of MRAEs is needed to prioritize and improve medication-related patient safety.Objective: To provide information on the nature, consequences and preventability of MRAEs occurring during hospitalization in the Netherlands.Study Design: Analysis of MRAEs identified in a retrospective chart review of patients hospitalized during 2004.Methods: The records of 7889 patients admitted to 21 hospitals in 2004 were reviewed by trained nurses and physicians using a three-stage process. For each hospital, patient records of 200 discharged and 200 deceased patients were randomly selected and reviewed. For each patient record, characteristics of the patient and the admission were collected. After identification of an MRAE the physician reviewers determined the type, severity, preventability, drug category and excess length of stay associated with the MRAE. Data on additional interventions or procedures related to MRAEs were obtained by linking our data to the national hospital registration database. The excess length of stay and the additional medical procedures were multiplied by unit costs to estimate the total excess direct medical costs associated with the MRAE.Results: In total, 148 MRAEs occurred in 140 hospital admissions. The incidence of MRAEs was 0.9% (95% CI 0.7, 1.2) and the incidence of preventable MRAEs was 0.2% (95% CI 0.1, 0.4) per hospital admission. The majority of non-preventable MRAEs were adverse drug reactions caused by cancer chemotherapy. Preventable MRAEs were most often found in relation to anticoagulant treatment administered in combination with NSAIDs. Both non-preventable and preventable MRAEs resulted in considerable excess length of hospital stay and costs. On average, MRAEs resulted in an excess length of stay of 6.2 days (95% CI 3.6, 8.8) and average additional costs of &U20AC;2507 (95% CI 1520, 3773).Conclusions: This study was the first to provide detailed information on MRAEs during hospital admissions in the Netherlands, which were associated with both considerable patient harm and additional medical costs. To increase patient safety, interventions need to be developed that reduce the burden of MRAEs. These interventions should target the areas with the highest risk of MRAEs, notably antibacterials, cancer treatment, anticoagulant treatment and drug therapy in elderly patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

INTRODUCTION: The efficacy of antidepressants in the treatment of depression has been convincingly demonstrated in randomised trials. However, non-adherence to antidepressant treatment is common.Patients who came to 19 pharmacies with a new prescription for a non-tricyclic antidepressant, i.e. those who had not received any prescription for an antidepressant in the past 6 months, were invited to participate. They were then randomly allocated to education and coaching by the pharmacist or to usual care. The coaching programme consisted of three contacts with the pharmacist, with a mean duration of between 13 and 20 minutes, and a take-home video reviewing important facts on depression and antidepressant treatment.The clinical outcome measures were adherence to antidepressant treatment measured using an electronic pill container (eDEM) and improvement in depressive symptoms measured using the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (SCL). Resource use was measured by means of questionnaires. The uncertainty around differences in costs and cost effectiveness between the treatment groups was evaluated using bootstrapping.There were no significant differences in adherence, improvements in the SCL depression mean item score and costs over 6 months between the two treatment groups. Mean total costs (2002 values) were €3275 in the intervention group and €2961 in the control group (mean difference €315; 95% CI −1922, 2416). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio associated with the pharmacist intervention was €149 per 1% improvement in adherence and €2550 per point improvement in the SCL depression mean item score. Cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves indicated that the pharmacist intervention was not likely to be cost effective compared with usual care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate, from a societal perspective, the cost effectiveness of a pharmacy-based intervention to improve adherence to antidepressant therapy in adult patients receiving treatment in primary care.Patients who came to 19 pharmacies with a new prescription for a non-tricyclic antidepressant, i.e. those who had not received any prescription for an antidepressant in the past 6 months, were invited to participate. They were then randomly allocated to education and coaching by the pharmacist or to usual care. The coaching programme consisted of three contacts with the pharmacist, with a mean duration of between 13 and 20 minutes, and a take-home video reviewing important facts on depression and antidepressant treatment.The clinical outcome measures were adherence to antidepressant treatment measured using an electronic pill container (eDEM) and improvement in depressive symptoms measured using the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (SCL). Resource use was measured by means of questionnaires. The uncertainty around differences in costs and cost effectiveness between the treatment groups was evaluated using bootstrapping.There were no significant differences in adherence, improvements in the SCL depression mean item score and costs over 6 months between the two treatment groups. Mean total costs (2002 values) were €3275 in the intervention group and €2961 in the control group (mean difference €315; 95% CI −1922, 2416). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio associated with the pharmacist intervention was €149 per 1% improvement in adherence and €2550 per point improvement in the SCL depression mean item score. Cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves indicated that the pharmacist intervention was not likely to be cost effective compared with usual care. METHODS: An economic evaluation was performed alongside a 6-month randomised controlled trial in The Netherlands.… [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Major depression is common in older adults and is associated with increased health care costs. Depression often remains unrecognized in older adults, especially in primary care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effective less of a disease management program for major depression in elderly primary care patients compared with usual care. DESIGN: Economic evaluation alongside cluster randomized-controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive patients of 55 years and older were screened for depression using the Geriatric Depression Scale and the PRIME-MD was used for diagnosis. INTERVENTIONS: General practitioners in the intervention group received training on how to implement the disease management program consisting of screening, patient education, drug therapy with paroxetine, and supportive contacts. General practitioners in the usual care group were blind to the screening results. Treatment in this group was not restricted in any way. MEASUREMENT: Severity of depression, recovery from depression, and quality of life. Resource use measured over a 12-month period using interviews and valued using standard costs. RESULTS: Differences in clinical outcomes between the Intervention and usual care group were small and statistically insignificant. Total costs were $2,123 in the intervention and $2,259 in the usual care group (mean difference -$136, 95% confidence interval: -$1,194; $1,110). Cost-effectiveness planes indicated that there were no statistically significant differences in cost-effectiveness between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: This disease management program for major depression in elderly primary care patients had no statistically significant relationship with clinical outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness. Therefore, based on these results, continuing usual care is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]