Clinical and economic implications of increasing access to herpes zoster vaccination rate in community pharmacies.

BACKGROUND: A community pharmacist plays an important role in providing vaccination to the general public in the United States. No economic models have been used to assess the impact of these services on public health and economic benefits. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate the clinical and economic implications of community pharmacy-based herpes zoster (HZ) vaccination services with a hypothetical scenario of nonpharmacy-based vaccination in the State of Utah. METHODS: A hybrid model of decision tree and Markov models was used to estimate lifetime cost and health outcomes. This open-cohort model was populated based on Utah population statistics and included a population of 50 years and older who were eligible for HZ vaccination between the years 2010 and 2020. Data were derived from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Utah Immunization Coverage Report, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, the CDC National Health Interview Survey, and existing literature. The analysis was performed from a societal perspective. A lifetime time horizon was used. The primary outcomes were the number of vaccination cases increased and the number of shingles and postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) cases averted. Total costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were also estimated. RESULTS: Based on a cohort of 853,550 people eligible for HZ vaccination in Utah, an additional 11,576 individuals were vaccinated in the community pharmacy-based scenario compared with the nonpharmacy-based vaccination, resulting in 706 averted cases of shingles and 143 averted cases of PHN. Community pharmacy-based HZ vaccination was less costly (-$131,894) and gained more QALYs (52.2) compared with the nonpharmacy-based vaccination. A series of sensitivity analyses showed that the findings were robust. CONCLUSIONS: Community pharmacy-based HZ vaccination was less costly and gained more QALYs and was associated with improved other clinical outcomes in the State of Utah. This study might be used as a model for future evaluations of other community pharmacy-based vaccination programs in the United States.

The impact of pharmacist involvement on immunization uptake and other outcomes: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The underutilization of immunization services remains a big public health concern. Pharmacists can address this concern by playing an active role in immunization administration. OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the impact of pharmacist-involved interventions on immunization rates and other outcomes indirectly related to vaccine uptake. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from inception to February 2022 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies in which pharmacists were involved in the immunization process. Studies were excluded if no comparator was reported. Two reviewers independently completed data extraction and bias assessments using standardized forms. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 14 RCTs and 79 observational studies were included. Several types of immunizations were provided, including influenza, pneumococcal, herpes zoster, Tdap, and others in a variety of settings (community pharmacy, hospital, clinic, others). Pooled analyses from RCTs indicated that a pharmacist as immunizer (risk ratio 1.14 [95% CI 1.12-1.15]), advocator (1.31 [1.17-1.48]), or both (1.14 [1.12-1.15]) significantly increased immunization rates compared with usual care or non-pharmacist-involved interventions. The quality of evidence was assessed as moderate or low for those meta-analyses. Evidence from observational studies was consistent with the results found in the analysis of the RCTs. CONCLUSION: Pharmacist involvement as immunizer, advocator, or both roles has favorable effects on immunization uptake, especially with influenza vaccines in the United States and some high-income countries. As the practice of pharmacists in immunization has been expanded globally, further research on investigating the impact of pharmacist involvement in immunization in other countries, especially developing ones, is warranted.

Using real world evidence to generate cost-effectiveness analysis of fibrinolytic therapy in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in Thailand.

Background: Due to limited access to primary percutaneous coronary intervention for the management of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in low-to-middle-income countries (LMICs), fibrinolysis serves as a vital alternative reperfusion therapy. Among fibrinolytic agents, the cost-effectiveness of tenecteplase (TNK) in LMICs as compared to streptokinase (SK) for STEMI management remains unknown. Methods: Cost-effectiveness was analyzed using a hybrid model consisting of short-term analysis (30-days decision tree model) and long-term analysis (Markov model). Both health care provider and societal perspectives over a lifetime horizon with 3% discount rate were considered. Input parameters were obtained from Thailand's national health database, a network meta-analysis and literature review. Outcome measure was an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) determined by an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gain. An ICER of less than $5,590 per QALY gain is considered cost-effective. Series of sensitivity analyses were also performed. Findings: From the societal perspective, TNK increases cost by $827 and increases QALY by 0·173. Thus, the ICER is $4,777 per QALY gained. Similarly, the ICER from health care provider perspective is $4,664 per QALY gained. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, using 5,590 USD per QALY as threshold, the probability of TNK being cost-effective was 83% from both perspectives. The most influential parameters were risk ratio of death for treatment with TNK compared to SK and drug cost of TNK. Interpretation: In a resource-limited country like Thailand, tenecteplase is a cost-effective fibrinolytic drug for treatment of STEMI compared to streptokinase. Funding: None.

Challenges and experiences in linking community level reported out-of-pocket health expenditures to health provider recorded health expenditures: Experience from the iHOPE project in Northern Ghana.

Out of pocket health payment (OOPs) has been identified by the System of Health Accounts (SHA) as the largest source of health care financing in most low and middle-income countries. This means that most low and middle-income countries will rely on user fees and co-payments to generate revenue, rationalize the use of services, contain health systems costs or improve health system efficiency and service quality. However, the accurate measurement of OOPs has been challenged by several limitations which are attributed to both sampling and non-sampling errors when OOPs are estimated from household surveys, the primary source of information in LICs and LMICs. The incorrect measurement of OOP health payments can undermine the credibility of current health spending estimates, an otherwise important indicator for tracking UHC, hence there is the need to address these limitations and improve the measurement of OOPs. In an attempt to improve the measurement of OOPs in surveys, the INDEPTH-Network Household out-of-pocket expenditure project (iHOPE) developed new modules on household health utilization and expenditure by repurposing the existing Ghana Living Standards Survey instrument and validating these new tools with a 'gold standard' (provider data) with the aim of proposing alternative approaches capable of producing reliable data for estimating OOPs in the context of National Health Accounts and for the purpose of monitoring financial protection in health. This paper reports on the challenges and opportunities in using and linking household reported out-of-pocket health expenditures to their corresponding provider records for the purpose of validating household reported out-of-pocket health expenditure in the iHOPE project.

Investigating the effect of recall period on estimates of inpatient out-of-pocket expenditure from household surveys in Vietnam.

Out-of-pocket payments (OOPs), direct payments by households or individuals for healthcare are part of the health financing landscape. Data on OOPs is needed to monitor progress in financial risk protection, and the evaluation of health financing policies. In low-and-middle-income countries, estimates of OOPs rely heavily on self-reported data from household surveys. These surveys require respondents to recall events in the past and can suffer from recall biases. This study investigates the effect of recall period on the agreement of the amount and timing of inpatient OOPs between household reports and provider records in Bavi, Vietnam. We recruited 1397 households for interview using records from the district hospital. The households were interviewed with identical questionnaires except that the recall period was either 12 or 6 months. We linked household with provider data and excluded medicine costs from both household and provider OOPs since they could be purchased outside the hospital. We estimated the effect of recall period on the overall mean and variability of ratios of household to hospital reported OOPs using the Bland-Altman approach for method comparison. We estimated the effect of recall period on whether a transaction was recalled correctly in expenditure and time using multinomial regression. The households reported higher amounts of OOPs than did the hospital for both recall periods. There was no evidence of an effect of recall period on the mean of the ratios of household- to hospital-reported OOPs, although the confidence intervals are not inconsistent with previous studies indicating higher OOPs for shorter recall periods. The geometric mean ratio for the 6-month period was estimated to be a multiple of 1.4 (95% CI 0.9, 2.1) times that of the 12-month period. Similarly, there was no evidence of an effect of recall period on the risk of reporting lower or higher amounts than provider OOPs. The occurrence and timing of inpatient stays generally recalled well, with 70% remembered in the correct month declining slightly over time. Respondents for the 6-month recall period had a significantly lower risk of failing to report the event (RR 0.8 (0.7, 1.0)). The results suggest the best recall period may depend on whether the purpose of a survey is for the recall of the timing of events, in which case the 6 month period may be better, or the amounts of OOPs, where there was no significant difference and the provider records are not a gold standard but the 12 month period had a tendency to be in closer agreement with the provider OOPs.