Economic impact of pharmaceutical services on polymedicated patients: A systematic review

BackgroundPolypharmacy is commonly related to poor drug adherence, decreased quality of life and inappropriate prescribing in eldery. Furthermore, this condition also leads to a higher utilization of health services resources, due to the increased risk of adverse drug events, length of stays in hospitals and readmissions rates after discharge.ObjectiveThis Systematic Review aimed to synthesize the current evidence that evaluates pharmaceutical services on polymedicated patients, from an economic perspective.MethodsSystematic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, SCOPUS and Cochrane Library databases to identify studies that were published until January 2021. Experimental and observational studies were included in this review, using strict inclusion/exclusion criteria and were assessed for quality using the following tools: RoB and ROBINS-I. Two independent reviewers selected the articles and extracted the data.Results3,662 articles were retrieved from the databases. After the screening, 18 studies were included: 9 experimental and 9 observational studies. The studies reported that the integration of the pharmacist as a member of the healthcare team provides an optimized use of pharmacotherapy to polymedicated patients and contributes to health promotion, providing reduction of spending on medication, reduction of expenses related to emergency care and hospitalizations and other medical expenses. The ECRs made cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit analysis, and most of the Non Randomized studies had statistically significant cost savings even considering the expenses of pharmaceutical assistance. Experimental studies reported a cost reduction varying between US$ 193 to US$ 4,966 per patient per year. Furthermore, observational studies estimated a cost reduction of varying from US$ 3 to US$ 2,505 per patient per year. The cost savings are related to decrease in emergency visits and hospitalizations, through pharmacist intervention (medication review and pharmacotherapy follow-up).ConclusionsConsidering the set of studies included, pharmaceutical care services directed to polymedicated patients may cooperate to save financial resources. Most of the interventions showed positive economic trends and also contributed to improving clinical parameters and quality of life. However, due to the majority of the studies having exploratory or qualitative methodology, it is essential to carry out more robust studies, based on full economic evaluation.     

Optimal Respiratory Syncytial Virus intervention programmes using Nirsevimab in England and Wales

IntroductionRespiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) is a major cause of acute lower respiratory tract infections (ALRI) in infants. There are no licensed vaccines and only one monoclonal antibody available to protect infants from disease. A new and potentially longer-lasting monoclonal antibody, Nirsevimab, showed promising results in phase IIb/III trials. We evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Nirsevimab intervention programmes in England and Wales.MethodsWe used a dynamic model for RSV transmission, calibrated to data from England and Wales. We considered a suite of potential Nirsevimab programmes, including administration to all neonates (year-round); only neonates born during the RSV season (seasonal); or neonates born during the RSV season plus infants less than six months old before the start of the RSV season (seasonal + catch-up).ResultsIf administered seasonally to all infants at birth, we found that Nirsevimab would have to be priced at £63 or less per dose for at least 50% certainty that it could cost-effectively replace the current Palivizumab programme, using an ICER threshold of £20,000/QALY. An extended seasonal programme which includes a pre-season catch-up becomes the optimal strategy at a purchasing price of £32/dose or less for at least 50% certainty. At a purchasing price per dose of £5-32, the annual implementation costs of a seasonal programme could be as high as £2 million before a switch to a year-round strategy would be optimal.DiscussionNirsevimab has the potential to be cost-effective in England and Wales not only for use in high-risk infants.     

Capturing the value of vaccination within health technology assessment and health economics: Country analysis and priority value concepts

BackgroundA value of vaccination framework for economic evaluation (EE) identified unique value concepts for the broad benefits vaccination provides to individuals, society, healthcare systems and national economies. The objectives of this paper were to work with experts in developed countries to objectively identify three priority concepts to extend current EE.MethodsThe previously developed classification of value concepts in vaccination distinguished 18 concepts, categorised as conventional payer and societal perspective concepts and novel broader societal concepts. Their inclusion in current EE guidelines was assessed. Experts identified eight criteria relevant to decision-making and measurement feasibility, which were weighted and used to score each concept. The relative ranking of concepts by importance and the gaps in guidelines were used to identify three priority concepts on which to focus immediate efforts to extend EE.ResultsThe EE guidelines review highlighted differences across countries and between guidelines and practice. Conventional payer perspective concepts (e.g., individual and societal health gains and medical costs) were generally included, while gaps were evident for conventional societal perspective concepts (e.g., family/caregiver health and economic gains). Few novel broader societal benefits were considered, and only in ad hoc cases. The top-three concepts for near-term consideration: macroeconomic gains (e.g., benefiting the economy, tourism), social equity and ethics (e.g., equal distribution of health outcomes, reduced health/financial equity gaps) and health systems strengthening, resilience and security (e.g., efficiency gains, reduced disruption, increased capacity).ConclusionsGaps, inconsistencies and limited assessment of vaccination value in EE can lead to differences in policy and vaccination access. The three priority concepts identified provide a feasible approach for capturing VoV more broadly in the near-term. Robust methods for measuring and valuing these concepts in future assessments will help strengthen the evidence used to inform decisions, improving access to vaccines that are demonstrably good value for money from society’s point of view.     

A systematic review of the methodological quality of economic evaluations in genetic screening and testing for monogenic disorders

PurposeUnderstanding the value of genetic screening and testing for monogenic disorders requires high-quality, methodologically robust economic evaluations. This systematic review sought to assess the methodological quality among such studies and examined opportunities for improvement.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science for economic evaluations of genetic screening/testing (2013-2019). Methodological rigor and adherence to best practices were systematically assessed using the British Medical Journal checklist.ResultsAcross the 47 identified studies, there were substantial variations in modeling approaches, reporting detail, and sophistication. Models ranged from simple decision trees to individual-level microsimulations that compared between 2 and >20 alternative interventions. Many studies failed to report sufficient detail to enable replication or did not justify modeling assumptions, especially for costing methods and utility values. Meta-analyses, systematic reviews, or calibration were rarely used to derive parameter estimates. Nearly all studies conducted some sensitivity analysis, and more sophisticated studies implemented probabilistic sensitivity/uncertainty analysis, threshold analysis, and value of information analysis.ConclusionWe describe a heterogeneous body of work and present recommendations and exemplar studies across the methodological domains of (1) perspective, scope, and parameter selection; (2) use of uncertainty/sensitivity analyses; and (3) reporting transparency for improvement in the economic evaluation of genetic screening/testing.     

The potential public health and economic value of a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine in the United States: Use of cost-effectiveness modeling to inform vaccination prioritization

BackgroundResearchers are working at unprecedented speed to develop a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. We aimed to assess the value of a hypothetical vaccine and its potential public health impact when prioritization is required due to supply constraints.MethodsA Markov cohort model was used to estimate COVID-19 related direct medical costs and deaths in the United States (US), with and without implementation of a 60% efficacious vaccine. To prioritize the vaccine under constrained supply, the population was divided into tiers based on age; risk and age; and occupation and age; and outcomes were compared across one year under various supply assumptions. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained versus no vaccine was calculated for the entire adult population and for each tier in the three prioritization schemes.ResultsThe incremental cost per QALY gained for the US adult population was $8,200 versus no vaccination. For the tiers at highest risk of complications from COVID-19, such as those ages 65 years and older, vaccination was cost-saving compared to no vaccination. The cost per QALY gained increased to over $94,000 for those with a low risk of hospitalization and death following infection. Results were most sensitive to infection incidence, vaccine price, the cost of treating COVID-19, and vaccine efficacy. Under the most optimistic supply scenario, the hypothetical vaccine may prevent 31% of expected deaths. As supply becomes more constrained, only 23% of deaths may be prevented. In lower supply scenarios, prioritization becomes more important to maximize the number of deaths prevented.ConclusionsA COVID-19 vaccine is predicted to be good value for money (cost per QALY gained <$50,000). The speed at which an effective vaccine can be made available will determine how much morbidity and mortality may be prevented in the US.     

Economic Status and Mortality in Patients with Alzheimer's Disease in Japan: The Longevity Improvement and Fair Evidence Study

ObjectivesAs more countries are implementing measures to address Alzheimer’s disease (AD), it is essential to update the available knowledge on the relationship between economic status and mortality in patients with AD. This study examined the influence of economic status on mortality in Japanese individuals with AD using a medical claims dataset.DesignThis was a retrospective cohort study.Setting and ParticipantsMedical claims data from April 2014 to March 2019 were obtained from 13 local cities participating in the Longevity Improvement and Fair Evidence study. The inclusion criteria were patients aged 65 years and older who were newly diagnosed with AD during the study period.MethodsThe outcome was death during the follow-up period. We assessed economic status by household income (middle to high income and low income); data were obtained from the use of the Medical Expenditure Ceiling Application and Standard Copayment Reduction Card (fee reduction card) when receiving an AD diagnosis, as an indicator of low-income status. We performed multivariate Cox proportional hazards analyses to examine the relationship between economic status and mortality; the model was adjusted for age, sex, the Charlson comorbidity index, and antidementia drug use.ResultsWe identified 39,081 newly diagnosed patients with AD from the Longevity Improvement and Fair Evidence study database (mean age, 83.6 years; female, 67.1%). Of these, 3189 individuals were identified as having a low-income status. After adjusting for possible confounders, low-income status was associated with mortality (hazard ratio, 1.95; 95% confidence interval, 1.84–2.07).Conclusions and ImplicationsLow-income status was associated with substantially poorer prognoses in new AD cases, indicating a need for a thorough examination of medical and nursing care services utilized by low-income individuals with AD and to explore improvement strategies.     

Cost-effectiveness frameworks for comparing genome and exome sequencing versus conventional diagnostic pathways: A scoping review and recommended methods

PurposeMethodological challenges have limited economic evaluations of genome sequencing (GS) and exome sequencing (ES). Our objective was to develop conceptual frameworks for model-based cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of diagnostic GS/ES.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review of economic analyses to develop and iterate with experts a set of conceptual CEA frameworks for GS/ES for prenatal testing, early diagnosis in pediatrics, diagnosis of delayed-onset disorders in pediatrics, genetic testing in cancer, screening of newborns, and general population screening.ResultsReflecting on 57 studies meeting inclusion criteria, we recommend the following considerations for each clinical scenario. For prenatal testing, performing comparative analyses of costs of ES strategies and postpartum care, as well as genetic diagnoses and pregnancy outcomes. For early diagnosis in pediatrics, modeling quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs over ≥20 years for rapid turnaround GS/ES. For hereditary cancer syndrome testing, modeling cumulative costs and QALYs for the individual tested and first/second/third-degree relatives. For tumor profiling, not restricting to treatment uptake or response and including QALYs and costs of downstream outcomes. For screening, modeling lifetime costs and QALYs and considering consequences of low penetrance and GS/ES reanalysis.ConclusionOur frameworks can guide the design of model-based CEAs and ultimately foster robust evidence for the economic value of GS/ES.     

Impacto del primer año de tratamiento sustitutivo renal en la hospitalización de una comunidad autónoma

Introduction and objectivesChronic kidney disease has a high prevalence and economic impact, and an increased risk of hospitalization. Although there are public regional and country registries, we have not found references to estimate the impact of renal replacement therapy (RRT) on hospital admissions.MethodsWe obtained authorization from the ethics committee and health authorities to integrate the REMER [Madrid Kidney Disease Registry] (2013-2014) and Minimum Basic Data Set (2013-2015) databases and to analyze the admissions during the first year of RRT.Results767 patients started RRT in all the hospitals of our region across all RRT modalities. More than a third of the patients start dialysis during a hospital admission. This unplanned start, more common in HD than PD, shows relevant differences in patient profile or admission characteristics.Without considering this initial episode, almost 60% of patients were admitted during their first year. The hospitalization rate was 1.2 admissions/patient, higher in HD than in TX or PD; the mean length of stay was 8.6 days.The estimated cost of admissions during the first year is €12,006/patient. Our analysis ensures the exhaustive inclusion of all episodes and accurate estimation based on the discharge form.ConclusionThe impact of RRT on hospitals has been underestimated and is very relevant when calculating the total cost of RRT. Results from other countries cannot be extrapolated due to differences in the health system and patient profile. The integration of clinical databases could open up an opportunity that needs only institutional support for its development.