Trial reportPharmacoEconomics2007
Costs of a community pharmacist-led medicines management service for patients with coronary heart disease in England: healthcare system and patient perspectives.
Trial report in PharmacoEconomics, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Community pharmacy interventions for health promotion: effects on professional practice and health outcomes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Cost Effectiveness of Advanced Pharmacy Services Provided in the Community and Primary Care Settings: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2019Pooled it
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of pharmacist-led fee-for-services medication review.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2014Pooled it
- ESCP best practice: development of the national methodology for the provision of clinical-pharmaceutical care and its implementation in the healthcare system of the Czech Republic.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Article
- Impact of continuous pharmaceutical care led by clinical pharmacists during transitions of care on medication adherence and clinical outcomes for patients with coronary heart disease: a prospective cohort study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- Pharmacist Interventions for Medication Adherence: Community Guide Economic Reviews for Cardiovascular Disease.American journal of preventive medicine · 2022Review
- What, who and when? Incorporating a discrete choice experiment into an economic evaluation.Health economics review · 2016Article
- Valuing benefits to inform a clinical trial in pharmacy : do differences in utility measures at baseline affect the effectiveness of the intervention?PharmacoEconomics · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCoronary heart disease (CHD) is the most common cause of death in the UK. CHD cost the UK National Health Service (NHS) pound 3.5 billion in 2003. The economic impact of community pharmacists providing a medicines management service for patients with CHD has not been rigorously evaluated; the full economic costs of such interventions are rarely presented in the literature.
objectiveTo examine the incremental costs of a 1-year community pharmacist-led medicines management service for patients with CHD in the UK, from a healthcare system and patient perspective. METHODS AND
participantsA cost-minimisation analysis was conducted alongside a multicentre randomised controlled trial. The primary study participants were patients with CHD identified from general practice computer records. Patients (intervention, n = 980; control, n = 500) from 38 general practices in nine geographical areas in the UK were included in the study. INTERVENTION AND OUTCOMES MEASURES: The intervention consisted of a review of pharmaceuticals and lifestyle advice by pharmacists in their premises, with recommendations communicated to the patient's GP. The main outcome measure was the incremental cost per patient in the intervention group compared with the control group. Annual costs ( pound, 2003/4 values) included the costs of the intervention (training and delivery costs), the usual costs of NHS treatment (costs of pharmaceuticals, GP and hospital visits) and costs borne by patients. Data were collected in the 12 months before and 12 months after the intervention.
resultsThe total NHS cost increased between baseline and follow-up in both groups (from pound 1243 to pound 1286 [3%] in the control group and from pound 1410 to pound 1433 [2%] in the intervention group). The greater cost in the intervention group largely reflects the additional cost of the pharmacist training and the time taken to deliver the intervention; the difference in costs between the intervention and control groups, after controlling for differences in costs at baseline at follow-up, was statistically significant (p = 0.001). The costs of pharmaceuticals was higher in the intervention group ( pound 769.20 vs pound 742.3; p = 0.04). According to the sensitivity analysis, the intervention cost would need to decrease by 35% to achieve equivalence between costs in each arm of the trial. Difference to costs of patients and their carers at follow-up were not statistically significant.
conclusionsThe introduction of a 1-year pharmacist-led medicines management service is likely to increase the total cost of CHD treatment and prevention from the healthcare perspective, as the cost of the intervention outweighed the observed reduction in the cost of drugs in the intervention group. No changes in costs from the patient perspective were found.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.