Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analysis of a clinical medication review focused on personal goals in older persons with polypharmacy compared to usual care: Economic evaluation of the DREAMeR study.

AIMS: The ageing society may lead to increasing healthcare expenditure. A clinical medication review (CMR) could potentially reduce costs. The aim of this study is to perform a cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective of a patient-centred CMR. METHODS: A trial-based cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analysis was performed as part of the DREAMeR study, a pragmatic controlled trial that randomised patients aged ≥70 years using at least seven drugs to either CMR or usual care. Over six months, healthcare consumption and drug use were collected to estimate costs, and effects were collected in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) measured with EQ-5D-5 L and EQ-VAS and as reduced health-related complaints with impact on patients' daily lives. RESULTS: The total mean costs per patient (n = 588) over six months were €4,189 ± 6,596 for the control group (n = 294) and €4,008 ± 6,678 for the intervention group (n = 294), including estimated intervention costs of €199 ± 67, which resulted in a mean incremental total cost savings of €181 for the intervention group compared to the control group. Compared to the control group, for the intervention group, the mean incremental QALYs over six months were: -0.00217 measured with EQ-5D and 0.003 measured with EQ-VAS. The incremental effect of reduced health-related complaints with impact was -0.34. There was a likelihood of >90% that the intervention was cost-saving. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of a patient-centred CMR were inconsistent with no benefits on HR-QoL measured with EQ-5D-5 L and small benefits on HR-QoL measured with EQ-VAS and health-related complaints with impact on patients' daily lives. Additionally, a CMR could potentially be cost saving from a societal perspective.

Effects of a clinical medication review focused on personal goals, quality of life, and health problems in older persons with polypharmacy: A randomised controlled trial (DREAMeR-study).

BACKGROUND: Clinical medication reviews (CMRs) are increasingly performed in older persons with multimorbidity and polypharmacy to reduce drug-related problems (DRPs). However, there is limited evidence that a CMR can improve clinical outcomes. Little attention has been paid to patients' preferences and needs. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of a patient-centred CMR, focused on personal goals, on health-related quality of life (HR-QoL), and on number of health problems. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This study was a randomised controlled trial (RCT) performed in 35 community pharmacies and cooperating general practices in the Netherlands. Community-dwelling older persons (≥70 years) with polypharmacy (≥7 long-term medications) were randomly assigned to usual care or to receive a CMR. Randomisation was performed at the patient level per pharmacy using block randomisation. The primary outcomes were HR-QoL (assessed with EuroQol [EQ]-5D-5L and EQ-Visual Analogue Scale [VAS]) and number of health problems (such as pain or dizziness), after 3 and 6 months. Health problems were measured with a self-developed written questionnaire as the total number of health problems and number of health problems with a moderate to severe impact on daily life. Between April 2016 and February 2017, we recruited 629 participants (54% females, median age 79 years) and randomly assigned them to receive the intervention (n = 315) or usual care (n = 314). Over 6 months, in the intervention group, HR-QoL measured with EQ-VAS increased by 3.4 points (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94 to 5.8; p = 0.006), and the number of health problems with impact on daily life decreased by 12% (difference at 6 months -0.34; 95% CI -0.62 to -0.044; p = 0.024) as compared with the control group. There was no significant difference between the intervention group and control group for HR-QoL measured with EQ-5D-5L (difference at 6 months = -0.0022; 95% CI -0.024 to 0.020; p = 0.85) or total number of health problems (difference at 6 months = -0.30; 95% CI -0.64 to 0.054; p = 0.099). The main study limitations include the risk of bias due to the lack of blinding and difficulties in demonstrating which part of this complex intervention (for example, goal setting, extra attention to patients, reducing health problems, drug changes) contributed to the effects that we observed. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that a CMR focused on personal goals improved older patients' lives and wellbeing by increasing quality of life measured with EQ-VAS and decreasing the number of health problems with impact on daily life, although it did not significantly affect quality of life measured with the EQ-5D. Including the patient's personal goals and preferences in a medication review may help to establish these effects on outcomes that are relevant to older patients' lives. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register; NTR5713.

DREAMeR: Drug use Reconsidered in the Elderly using goal Attainment scales during Medication Review; study protocol of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinical medication reviews (CMR) are increasingly performed in older patients with polypharmacy. Studies have shown positive effects of CMR on process- and intermediate outcomes, like drug-related problems (DRPs). Little effect has been shown on clinical outcomes, like hospital admissions or health-related quality of life (HR-QoL). In particular, HR-QoL is related to the individual health-related goals and complaints of patients. The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of a CMR focused on personal goals on HR-QoL and health-related complaints in older patients with polypharmacy. METHODS: A randomised controlled trial will be performed in 35 Dutch community pharmacies aiming to include 630 patients aged 70 years and older using seven or more chronic drugs. Patients will be randomly assigned to control or intervention group by block-randomisation per pharmacy. Patients in the intervention group receive a CMR focused on patients' preferences, personal goals and health-related complaints. With every goal a goal attainment scale (GAS) will be proposed. Primary outcome measures are HR-QoL, measured with the EQ-5D-5L and EQ-VAS and the number of health-related complaints per patient measured with a written questionnaire, during a follow-up period of six months. Secondary outcomes are healthcare utilisation, number and type of drug changes, number and type of health-related goals, scores on GAS and number and type of DRPs and interventions. DISCUSSION: This study is expected to add evidence on the effects of a CMR on HR-QoL and health-related complaints in older patients with polypharmacy. New in this study is the use of personal goals measured with GAS and health-related complaints as patient-related outcome measures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register; NTR5713 .

Majority of drug-related problems identified during medication review are not associated with STOPP/START criteria.

PURPOSE: STOPP and START criteria identify potential inappropriate prescribing and potential prescribing omissions. It is unknown whether STOPP/START criteria identify all drug-related problems. This study aims to determine to what extent STOPP/START correspond to drug-related problems (DRPs) identified during a full clinical medication review. METHODS: In 13 Dutch community pharmacies, 457 community-dwelling patients aged ≥65 years and using ≥5 drugs, received a full clinical medication review. Community pharmacists identified potential DRPs and recommendations by implicit criteria. After completion, all identified DRPs and recommendations were compared with STOPP and START criteria by investigators. RESULTS: The total number of potential DRPs identified by community pharmacists was 1656 in 457 patients (mean 3.6 per patient). Eighty-one percent of DRPs were not associated with STOPP/START criteria. The percentage of START criteria present in identified DRPs was higher than the percentage of STOPP criteria (13 vs. 5.7%, p < 0.01). The implementation rate for recommendations associated with STOPP criteria was higher compared to recommendations associated with START criteria (56 vs. 39%, p < 0.01). Both implementation rates of STOPP and START recommendations were lower compared to recommendations not associated with STOPP/START criteria (66%, p = 0.047 and p < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the majority of drug-related problems of community-dwelling older patients was not associated with STOPP/START criteria. These findings suggest that application of STOPP/START criteria in full clinical medication review should preferably be combined with implicit criteria.

The use of goal attainment scaling during clinical medication review in older persons with polypharmacy.

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that a clinical medication review (CMR) reduces drug-related problems (DRPs), but the effects on clinical outcomes are less clear. Perhaps, CMRs in older persons could me more effective when they focus on patients' personal goals and health-related complaints. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate whether goal attainment scaling (GAS) is a useful tool for determining goals and monitoring their attainment during CMR. METHODS: This study was an analysis based on data of the intervention group of the DREAMeR-study; a randomised controlled trial investigating the effects of CMR in primary care. 315 persons aged ≥70 years using ≥7 drugs were randomised to the intervention: a CMR focused on personal goals using GAS. Outcome measures were: percentage of persons with health-related goals, attainment of goals measured with GAS-scores after three and six months, type of health-related goals and implementation rates of recommendations for GAS-related DRPs and other DRPs. RESULTS: A total of 406 health-related goals were set for 283 of 315 included persons (90%). Of the 350 evaluated goals (86%), 37% was attained after three months and 43% after six months. The goals 'reduce pain' (n = 66, 16%), 'improve mobility' (n = 57, 14%) and 'reduce number of pills' (n = 37, 9.1%) were most prevalent. The implementation rate of recommendations for GAS-related DRPs was 81% compared to 62% for not GAS-related DRPs (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Goal setting is important for prioritizing the most important problems during clinical medication review and Goal Attainment Scaling seems to be a useful tool for monitoring the attainment of these goals.