A Trial-Based Cost-Utility Analysis of a Medication Optimization Intervention Versus Standard Care in Older Adults.

BACKGROUND: Older adults are at greater risk of medication-related harm than younger adults. The Integrated Medication Management model is an interdisciplinary method aiming to optimize medication therapy and improve patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the cost effectiveness of a medication optimization intervention compared to standard care in acutely hospitalized older adults. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis including 285 adults aged ≥ 70 years was carried out alongside the IMMENSE study. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were derived using the EuroQol 5-Dimension 3-Level Health State Questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L). Patient-level data for healthcare use and costs were obtained from administrative registers, taking a healthcare perspective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated for a 12-month follow-up and compared to a societal willingness-to-pay range of €/QALY 27,067-81,200 (NOK 275,000-825,000). Because of a capacity issue in a primary care resulting in extended hospital stays, a subgroup analysis was carried out for non-long and long stayers with hospitalizations < 14 days or ≥ 14 days. RESULTS: Mean QALYs were 0.023 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.022-0.025] higher and mean healthcare costs were €4429 [95% CI - 1101 to 11,926] higher for the intervention group in a full population analysis. This produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €192,565/QALY. For the subgroup analysis, mean QALYs were 0.067 [95% CI 0.066-0.070, n = 222] and - 0.101 [95% CI - 0.035 to 0.048, n = 63] for the intervention group in the non-long stayers and long stayers, respectively. Corresponding mean costs were €- 824 [95% CI - 3869 to 2066] and €1992 [95% CI - 17,964 to 18,811], respectively. The intervention dominated standard care for the non-long stayers with a probability of cost effectiveness of 93.1-99.2% for the whole willingness-to-pay range and 67.8% at a zero willingness to pay. Hospitalizations were the main cost driver, and readmissions contributed the most to the cost difference between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: According to societal willingness-to-pay thresholds, the medication optimization intervention was not cost effective compared to standard care for the full population. The intervention dominated standard care for the non-long stayers, with a high probability of cost effectiveness. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The IMMENSE trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov on 28 June, 2016 before enrolment started (NCT02816086).

Interdisciplinary collaboration across secondary and primary care to improve medication safety in the elderly (The IMMENSE study) - a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Suboptimal medication use contributes to a substantial proportion of hospitalizations and emergency department visits in older adults. We designed a clinical pharmacist intervention to optimize medication therapy in older hospitalized patients. Based on the integrated medicine management (IMM) model, the 5-step IMMENSE intervention comprise medication reconciliation, medication review, reconciled medication list upon discharge, patient counselling, and post discharge communication with primary care. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of the intervention on healthcare use and mortality. METHODS: A non-blinded parallel group randomized controlled trial was conducted in two internal medicine wards at the University Hospital of North Norway. Acutely admitted patients ≥ 70 years were randomized 1:1 to intervention or standard care (control). The primary outcome was the rate of emergency medical visits (readmissions and emergency department visits) 12 months after discharge. RESULTS: Of the 1510 patients assessed for eligibility, 662 patients were asked to participate, and 516 were enrolled. After withdrawal of consent and deaths in hospital, the modified intention-to-treat population comprised 480 patients with a mean age of 83.1 years (SD: 6.3); 244 intervention patients and 236 control patients. The number of emergency medical visits in the intervention and control group was 497 and 499, respectively, and no statistically significant difference was observed in rate of the primary outcome between the groups [adjusted incidence rate ratio of 1.02 (95% CI: 0.82-1.27)]. No statistically significant differences between groups were observed for any of the secondary outcomes, neither in subgroups, nor for the per-protocol population. CONCLUSIONS: We did not observe any statistical significant effects of the IMMENSE intervention on the rate of emergency medical visits or any other secondary outcomes after 12 months in hospitalized older adults included in this study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered in clinicaltrials.gov on 28/06/2016, before enrolment started (NCT02816086).

Healthcare costs of adverse drug reactions and potentially inappropriate prescribing in older adults: a population-based study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the distribution of costs based on potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) and adverse drug reaction (ADR) status in terms of total direct costs and costs caused by ADRs, among older adults. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study was conducted among older adults, identified from a random sample of the general Swedish population. PIP was identified based on the Screening Tool of Older Persons' Prescriptions (STOPP) criteria and ADRs were identified using the Howard criteria. Causality between PIP and ADRs was evaluated using Hallas' criteria. Prevalence-based direct healthcare costs were calculated for the 3-month study period, including the total cost for healthcare and drugs, and the cost caused by ADRs. SETTING: All care levels, including primary care, other outpatient care and inpatient care. PARTICIPANTS: 813 adults ≥65 years. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The prevalence and cost of PIP and ADRs. RESULTS: Total direct cost for persons with PIP was approximately twice the total cost of those without PIP (€1958 (€1428-€2616) vs €881 (€817-€1167), p=0.0020). The costs caused by ADRs was 10 times higher among persons with PIP, compared with those without PIP (€270 (€86-€545) vs €27 (€10-€61), p=0.047). For persons with ADRs caused by PIP, total direct costs were €4646 (€2617-€7931). This group represented 8% of the study population and used 25% of the costs. The main cost driver in all studied patient groups was healthcare contacts. CONCLUSIONS: Older persons with PIP and ADRs had high healthcare costs, particularly when ADRs were caused by PIP. Since these costs appear to be substantial, the potential savings by preventing their occurrence may, to a certain degree, cover the added cost of such activities. Further studies should be undertaken to provide further evidence on the costs of PIP, ADRs and ADRs caused by PIP.