Search

Objectives: In Portugal, the dispensing of most outpatient specialty medicines is performed exclusively through hospital pharmacies and totally financed by the National Health Service. During the COVID-19 first wave, the government allowed the transfer of the dispensing of hospital-only medicines (HOMs) to community pharmacies (CPs). This study aimed to measure the value generated by the intervention of CP in the dispensing of HOM., Methods: A single-arm, before-and-after study with 3-month follow-up was conducted enrolling a randomly selected sample of patients or caregivers with at least 1 dispensation of HOM through CP. Data were collected by telephone interview. Main outcomes were patients' self-reported adherence (Measure Treatment Adherence), health-related quality of life (EQ-5D 3-Level), satisfaction with the service, and costs related to HOM access., Results: Overall 603 subjects were recruited to participate in the study (males 50.6%) with mean 55 years old (SD = 16). The already high mean adherence score to therapy improved significantly (P < .0001), and no statistically significant change (P > .5757) was found in the mean EQ-5D score between baseline (0.7 ± 0.3) and 3-month follow-up (0.8 ± 0.3). Annual savings account for €262.1/person, arising from travel expenses and absenteeism reduction. Participants reported a significant increase in satisfaction levels in all evaluated domains-pharmacist's availability, opening hours, waiting time, privacy conditions, and overall experience., Conclusions: Changing the dispense setting to CP may promote better access and satisfaction. Moreover, it ensures the persistence of treatments, promotes savings for citizens, and reduces the burden of healthcare services, representing a crucial public health measure., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

aime Correia de Sousa41Centre for Health Evaluation & Research/Infosaude (CEFAR/IS), National Association of Pharmacies (ANF), Lisbon, Portugal; 2Medical Department, AstraZeneca, Barcarena, Portugal; 3MEDIDA – Medicina, Educação, Investigação, Desenvolvimento e Avaliação, Porto, Portugal; 4Life and Health Sciences Research Institute (ICVS), PT Government Associate Laboratory, School of Medicine, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal; 5Center for Health Technology and Services Research (CINTESIS), Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal; 6CUF Allergy Unit, Porto Hospital and Institute, Porto, PortugalCorrespondence: Mariana Romão, Centre for Health Evaluation & Research/Infosaude (CEFAR/IS), National Association of Pharmacies (ANF), Rua Marechal Saldanha 1, Lisboa, 1249-069, Portugal, Email [email protected] Purpose: Oral corticosteroids (OCS) are frequently used in asthma management but have an important risk-profile. The aim of the study is to characterize and compare the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, treatment regimen and asthma control between OCS users and non-users among the population of asthma patients (≥ 18 years) at GINA step 3 and above treated with a fixed combination of an inhaled corticosteroid and a long-acting beta-agonist (ICS/LABA). Methods: Cross-sectional study in Portuguese community pharmacies. Data was collected via paper-based interview delivered at the pharmacy (sociodemographic characteristics and asthma treatment regimen, namely ICS/LABA and OCS utilization), followed by a telephonic interview collecting smoking history, comorbidities, body mass index (BMI), history of exacerbations and asthma-related healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) in the previous 12 months, as well as asthma control using the Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test (CARAT®). Results: A total of 347 patients recruited in 98 pharmacies were included in the analysis. Of those, 328 had completed both questionnaires. A quarter of the individuals reported OCS use in the previous 12 months (OCS users), either as add-on therapy (6%) or exacerbation treatment (19%). Patients were mostly females (72%), with an average age of 59.5 years (SD=15.4). OCS users were significantly older and reported more frequently having conjunctivitis (25.9% vs 15.0%), osteoporosis (25.9% vs 13.4%), arthritis (14.6% vs 6.9%), and gastrointestinal disease (16.1% vs 8.1%). OCS users also reported greater urgent HCRU: unscheduled consultations (33.3% vs 9.3%) and emergency department (ED) visits (32.1% vs 12.1%). Both groups presented poor disease control (85.2% of OCS users vs 72.9% of non-OCS users). Conclusion: These results highlight the burden of OCS therapy to asthma patients and the need to improve asthma management, by adopting OCS sparing strategies in this subgroup of patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]