Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27913940›Full record

ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2017

Cost analysis and cost-benefit analysis of a medication review with follow-up service in aged polypharmacy patients.

Amaia Malet-Larrea, Estíbaliz Goyenechea, Miguel A Gastelurrutia, Begoña Calvo, Victoria García-Cárdenas, Juan M Cabases, Aránzazu Noain, Fernando Martínez-Martínez, Daniel Sabater-Hernández, Shalom I Benrimoj

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Amaia Malet-LarreaPharmaceutical Technology Department, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of the Basque Country, P. Universidad 7, 01006, Vitoria, Spain. amaia.malet@ehu.eus.
Estíbaliz GoyenecheaOfficial Pharmacist Association of Guipúzcoa, Prim 2, 20006, San Sebastián, Spain.
Miguel A GastelurrutiaPharmaceutical Care Research Group, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Granada, Campus Universitario de Cartuja, 18071, Granada, Spain.
Begoña CalvoPharmaceutical Technology Department, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of the Basque Country, P. Universidad 7, 01006, Vitoria, Spain.
Victoria García-CárdenasGraduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, 15 Broadway, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia.
Juan M CabasesDepartment of Economics, Public University of Navarra, Campus Arrosadía, 31006, Pamplona, Spain.
Aránzazu NoainPharmaceutical Care Research Group, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Granada, Campus Universitario de Cartuja, 18071, Granada, Spain.
Fernando Martínez-MartínezPharmaceutical Care Research Group, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Granada, Campus Universitario de Cartuja, 18071, Granada, Spain.
Daniel Sabater-HernándezPharmaceutical Care Research Group, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Granada, Campus Universitario de Cartuja, 18071, Granada, Spain.
Shalom I BenrimojGraduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, 15 Broadway, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDrug related problems have a significant clinical and economic burden on patients and the healthcare system. Medication review with follow-up (MRF) is a professional pharmacy service aimed at improving patient's health outcomes through an optimization of the medication.

objectiveTo ascertain the economic impact of the MRF service provided in community pharmacies to aged polypharmacy patients comparing MRF with usual care, by undertaking a cost analysis and a cost-benefit analysis.

methodsThe economic evaluation was based on a cluster randomized controlled trial. Patients in the intervention group (IG) received the MRF service and the comparison group (CG) received usual care. The analysis was conducted from the national health system (NHS) perspective over 6 months. Direct medical costs were included and expressed in euros at 2014 prices. Health benefits were estimated by assigning a monetary value to the quality-adjusted life years. One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis was undertaken in order to analyse the uncertainty.

resultsThe analysis included 1403 patients (IG: n = 688 vs CG: n = 715). The cost analysis showed that the MRF saved 97 € per patient in 6 months. Extrapolating data to 1 year and assuming a fee for service of 22 € per patient-month, the estimated savings were 273 € per patient-year. The cost-benefit ratio revealed that for every 1 € invested in MRF, a benefit of 3.3 € to 6.2 € was obtained.

conclusionThe MRF provided health benefits to patients and substantial cost savings to the NHS. Investment in this service would represent an efficient use of healthcare resources.

Indexed as

Medication ReconciliationPolypharmacyQuality-Adjusted Life YearsAgedCost-Benefit AnalysisFollow-Up StudiesHumansPharmaciesAgedCost and cost analysisCost-benefit analysisMedication reviewPharmaceutical servicesPharmacists

Identifiers

PMID27913940

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.