Economic evaluation of pharmacy services: a systematic review of the literature (2016-2020).

BACKGROUND: Economic evaluation is crucial for healthcare decision-makers to select effective interventions. An updated systematic review of the economic evaluation of pharmacy services is required in the current healthcare environment. AIM: To conduct a systematic review of literature on economic evaluation of pharmacy services. METHOD: Literature (2016-2020) was searched on PubMed, Web of Sciences, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and SpringerLink. An additional search was conducted in five health economic-related journals. The studies performed an economic analysis describing pharmacy services and settings. The reviewing checklist for economic evaluation was used for quality assessment. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and willingness-to-pay threshold were the main measures for cost-effective analysis (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA), while cost-saving, cost-benefit-ratio (CBR), and net benefit were used for cost-minimization analysis (CMA) and cost-benefit analysis (CBA). RESULTS: Forty-three articles were reviewed. The major practice settings were in the USA (n = 6), the UK (n = 6), Canada (n = 6), and the Netherlands (n = 6). Twelve studies had good quality according to the reviewing checklist. CUA was used most frequently (n = 15), followed by CBA (n = 12). Some inconsistent findings (n = 14) existed among the included studies. Most agreed (n = 29) that pharmacy services economically impact the healthcare system: hospital-based (n = 13), community pharmacy (n = 13), and primary care (n = 3). Pharmacy services were found to be cost-effectiveness or cost-saving among both developed (n = 32) and in developing countries (n = 11). CONCLUSION: The increased use of economic evaluation of pharmacy services confirms the worth of pharmacy services in improving patients' health outcomes in all settings. Therefore, economic evaluation should be incorporated into developing innovative pharmacy services.

Pharmacy students' preparation to provide pharmaceutical care for patients with non-communicable diseases in six ASEAN countries: A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Pharmacy education programs prepare graduates to promote health for patients with noncommunicable disease (NCDs), but there is limited information concerning Association of South East Asia Nations (ASEAN) countries. The study aim was to synthesize academic staff's, alumni's, and alumni supervisors' perspectives on preparation for students to provide pharmaceutical care in NCDs. METHODS: A qualitative research design was used. In-depth interviews with structured questions following the Context, Input, Process, and Product/Outcomes model framework were conducted with four academic staff, three alumni, and three alumni supervisors from six study sites in six countries. Interview questions were constructed in Thai and translated to English by using forward and backward translation. Verbatim transcriptions were used to perform thematic analysis with investigator triangulation. RESULTS: Sixty participants were included. The context showed three main themes related to Burden of NCDs, Pharmacist Roles in NCDs, and Goals. The input showed three main themes of Teaching Methods, Development Plans for Academic Staff, and Budgets and Infrastructure. The process showed one main theme of Struggles in Teaching Methods. The outcomes/outputs showed three main themes of Individual, Organizational, and Professional Levels. Schools need curricula that focus on NCDs, pharmacist competency and skills, and academic preparation of students for practice. Gaps limiting achievement of goals included lack of well-trained academic staff, limited learning facilities, self-learning opportunities, acceptance from other health professionals, and career ladders. CONCLUSIONS: The preparation of pharmacy students varied in six ASEAN countries. Pharmacy education programs must address existing gaps that limit achievement of goals related to NCDs.

Evaluation of Inpatient Opioid Prescribing Resulting in Outpatient Opioid Prescriptions for Previously Opioid-Naive Internal Medicine Patients.

BACKGROUND: Little data exist regarding inpatient opioid prescriptions as a potential contribution to the current opioid crisis. While pain management is essential to inpatient care, the ease of which opioids may be prescribed for all levels of pain may contribute to unnecessary inpatient exposure and new outpatient prescriptions. The aim of this study was to observe patterns of opioid prescribing potentially leading to new opioid prescriptions at hospital discharge for previously opioid-naive patients. METHODS: This study was a single-center observational study of opioid-naïve internal medicine patients who were prescribed inpatient opioids. Patient charts were reviewed to assess the patterns of inpatient opioid and non-opioid analgesic use, new opioid prescriptions upon discharge and medical record documentation justifying the need for outpatient therapy. RESULTS: Among the 101 patients included in this study, 71 were prescribed IV opioids and 45 were prescribed both IV and oral opioids. Non-opioid analgesics were available for 78 patients. Twenty patients were discharged with a new prescription. The mean duration of outpatient prescriptions was 3.85 +/- 1.85 days with mean morphine milligram equivalents (MME) of 44.25 +/- 22.16. Among patients receiving these outpatient prescriptions, 11 had reference to the therapy in the discharge summary. CONCLUSIONS: This observational study describes an opportunity to improve inpatient opioid prescribing practices which may reduce new prescriptions for continued outpatient therapy. Further work should focus on optimizing use of non-opioid analgesia, minimizing use of IV opioids and requiring prescribers to justify the indication for new opioid prescriptions upon hospital discharge.

Evaluation of Deprescribing Amiodarone After New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation in Critical Illness.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have shed light on the continued prescription of inpatient medications upon hospital discharge, despite the original intent of short-term inpatient therapy. Amiodarone, an antiarrhythmic associated with significant adverse effects with long-term use, is commonly used for new-onset atrial fibrillation in critical illness (NAFCI). Although it is often preferred in this setting of hemodynamic instability, a prescription for long-term use should be carefully considered, preferably by a cardiologist. This study was conducted to evaluate the incidence of patients discharged on amiodarone without a cardiology consult or referral after being initiated on amiodarone for NAFCI. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of all patients newly prescribed amiodarone for NAFCI over a 2-year period. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients who were continued on amiodarone upon hospital discharge without review by or outpatient referral to a cardiologist. RESULTS: Of the 100 patients who met inclusion criteria, 59 patients were prescribed amiodarone upon hospital discharge. Of these, 48 patients (81.4%) had converted to normal sinus rhythm with the resolution of critical illness. Of 100 patients, 23 received prescriptions for amiodarone upon discharge without a cardiology consult or referral. CONCLUSION: Amiodarone was frequently continued upon discharge without referral to a cardiologist in patients initiated on this therapy for NAFCI. This may contribute to unnecessary long-term therapy, thereby increasing the risk for significant side effects, drug interactions, and increased healthcare costs. This study suggests that careful medication reconciliation through all transitions of care, including discharge, is essential.