SynthesisEuropean journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice2021
Pharmacists' considerations on non-medical switching at the hospital: a systematic review of the economic outcomes of cost-saving therapeutic drug classes.
Synthesis in European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current Expertise, Opinions, and Attitude toward TNF-⍺ Antagonist Biosimilars among Physicians: A Self-Administered Online Survey in Western Switzerland.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesNon-medical switching (NMS) strategies have the capacity to reduce overall costs in hospitals while maintaining a high level of care. However, the most appropriate diseases and/or medicines for NMS strategies are still vague. The aim of this review was to give a state-of-the-art summary regarding the economic outcomes resulting from the use of NMS strategies and to discuss whether they would be implementable in a hospital inpatient setting.
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in Medline, Embase, and ScienceDirect. Studies published between 1988 and 2018 were included if they evaluated the economic impact of NMS strategies or if they performed an economic evaluation between two drugs. Studies regarding antineoplastic agents, endocrine therapies, and immunostimulants, or immunosuppressants, and biosimilars were excluded.
resultsFifty (69%) studies assessing an NMS strategy and 22 (31%) studies comparing two medicines were allocated to four categories: prospective studies (n=8, 11%); retrospective chart reviews (n=29, 40%); retrospective claims analysis (n=13, 18%); and retrospective data analysis (n=22, 31%). Hypercholesterolemia, peptic ulcer, and gastro-oesophageal reflux diseases, diabetes mellitus, and venous thromboembolism were the most prevalent diseases in studies evaluating an NMS strategy. Sixty-eight per cent of the included papers reported a reduction in costs with no significant changes in health outcomes and 8 per cent reported a deterioration in health outcomes and/or increased costs.
conclusionRegardless of the exclusion of studies regarding biologics or medicines used in oncology, the review highlights that NMS strategies with medicines whose management do not require a thorough clinical assessment were associated with reduced costs and no significant changes in patients' health outcomes, in the inpatient setting. NMS strategies targeting medicines that require an extensive clinical assessment should be evaluated using hospital-specific effectiveness and/or utility data prior to their implementation.
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.