Search

A recent study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) found that pharmacogenomic testing, which uses genetic information to guide treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD), is both cost-saving and improves clinical outcomes. However, the affordability of upfront investment in this testing is a major challenge in healthcare systems where funds are already allocated. Access to and public funding for MDD treatment options vary across Canada, so evaluations of the cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenomic testing should consider all available treatment options, not just those locally available. The study's model for assessing the cost-effectiveness of interventions for MDD represents valuable research infrastructure that can support evidence-informed decision-making in healthcare systems. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Many decisions regarding health resource utilization flow through the patient-clinician interaction. Thus, it represents a place where de-implementation interventions may have considerable effect on reducing the use of clinical interventions that lack efficacy, have risks that outweigh benefits, or are not cost-effective (i.e., low-value care). The objective of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to determine the effect of de-implementation interventions that engage patients within the patient-clinician interaction on use of low-value care.Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched from inception to November 2019. Gray literature was searched using the CADTH tool. Studies were screened independently by two reviewers and were included if they (1) described an intervention that engaged patients in an initiative to reduce low-value care, (2) reported the use of low-value care with and without the intervention, and (3) were randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or quasi-experimental designs. Studies describing interventions solely focused on clinicians or published in a language other than English were excluded. Data was extracted independently in duplicate and pertained to the low-value clinical intervention of interest, components of the strategy for patient engagement, and study outcomes. Quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs and a modified Downs and Black checklist for quasi-experimental studies. Random effects meta-analysis (reported as risk ratio, RR) was used to examine the effect of de-implementation interventions on the use of low-value care.Results: From 6736 unique citations, 9 RCTs and 13 quasi-experimental studies were included in the systematic review. Studies mostly originated from the USA (n = 13, 59%), targeted treatments (n = 17, 77%), and took place in primary care (n = 10, 45%). The most common intervention was patient-oriented educational material (n = 18, 82%), followed by tools for shared decision-making (n = 5, 23%). Random effects meta-analysis demonstrated that de-implementation interventions that engage patients within the patient-clinician interaction led to a significant reduction in low-value care in both RCTs (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.66-0.84) and quasi-experimental studies (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.43-0.87). There was significant inter-study heterogeneity; however, intervention effects were consistent across subgroups defined by low-value practice and patient-engagement strategy.Conclusions: De-implementation interventions that engage patients within the patient-clinician interaction through patient-targeted educational materials or shared decision-making tools are effective in decreasing the use of low-value care. Clinicians and policymakers should consider engaging patients within initiatives that seek to reduce low-value care.Registration: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/6fsxm). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A randomized trial (the Alberta Vascular Risk Reduction Community Pharmacy Project) showed that a community pharmacist-led intervention was efficacious for reducing cardiovascular (CV) risk. However, the cost of this strategy is unknown.Objectives: We examined the short- and long-term cost of a pharmacist-led intervention to reduce CV risk compared to usual care.Methods: We conducted a trial-based cost analysis from the perspective of a publicly funded healthcare system. Over 3 and 12 months of follow-up, we examined specific intervention costs (pharmacy claims), related intervention costs (laboratory tests and medications), and ongoing healthcare costs (physician claims, emergency department visits, and hospital admissions). We also used the validated CV Disease Policy Model-Canada to estimate the long-term effects.Results: A total of 684 participants (mean age 62, 57% male) were included. Overall, there were no significant differences in healthcare costs at 3 or 12 months between the usual care and intervention groups (P = .127). The CV disease-related healthcare cost of managing a patient over a lifetime was estimated to be Can$45 530 (95% uncertainty interval [UI], 45 460-45 580) and Can$40 750 (95% UI, 37 780-43 620) in usual care and intervention groups, respectively, an incremental cost savings of Can$4770 per patient (95% UI, 1900-7760). The intervention dominated usual care (better outcomes and lower costs) across 3-year, 5-year, 10-year, and lifetime horizons.Conclusion: This economic analysis suggests that a clinical pathway-driven pharmacist-led intervention (previously shown to reduce CV risk) was associated with similar measured healthcare costs over 1 year, and lower extrapolated healthcare costs over a patient lifetime. This strategy could be broadly implemented to realize its benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Large amounts of scientific evidence are generated, but not implemented into patient care (the ‘knowledge-to-care’ gap). We identified and prioritized knowledge-to-care gaps in critical care as opportunities to improve the quality and value of healthcare. Methods: We used a multi-method community-based participatory research approach to engage a Network of all adult (n = 14) and pediatric (n = 2) medical-surgical intensive care units (ICUs) in a fully integrated geographically defined healthcare system serving 4 million residents. Participants included Network oversight committee members (n = 38) and frontline providers (n = 1,790). Network committee members used a modified RAND/University of California Appropriateness Methodology, to serially propose, rate (validated 9 point scale) and revise potential knowledge-to-care gaps as priorities for improvement. The priorities were sent to frontline providers for evaluation. Results were relayed back to all frontline providers for feedback. Results: Initially, 68 knowledge-to-care gaps were proposed, rated and revised by the committee (n = 32 participants) over 3 rounds of review and resulted in 13 proposed priorities for improvement. Then, 1,103 providers (62% response rate) evaluated the priorities, and rated 9 as ‘necessary’ (median score 7–9). Several factors were associated with rating priorities as necessary in multivariable logistic regression, related to the provider (experience, teaching status of ICU) and topic (strength of supporting evidence, potential to benefit the patient, potential to improve patient/family experience, potential to decrease costs). Conclusions: A community-based participatory research approach engaged a diverse group of stakeholders to identify 9 priorities for improving the quality and value of critical care. The approach was time and cost efficient and could serve as a model to prioritize areas for research quality improvement across other settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pharmaceutical expenditure has increased rapidly across many Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries over the past three decades. This growth is an increasing concern for governments and other third-party payers seeking to provide equitable and comprehensive healthcare within sustainable budgets. In order to create headroom for increasing utilisation, and to fund new high-cost therapies, there is an active push to 'disinvest' from low-value drugs. The aim of this article is to review how reimbursement policy decision makers have sought to partially or completely disinvest from drugs in a range of OECD countries (UK, France, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) where they are publicly funded or subsidised. We employed a systematic literature search strategy and the incorporation of grey literature known to the authorship team. We canvass key policy instruments from each country to outline key approaches to the identification of candidate drugs for disinvestment assessment (passive approaches vs. more active approaches); methods of disinvestment and value-based purchasing (de-listing, restricting treatment, price or reimbursement rate reductions, encouraging generic prescribing); lessons learnt from the various approaches; the potential role of coverage with evidence development; and the need for careful stakeholder management. Dedicated sections are provided with detailed coverage of policy approaches (with drug examples) from each country. Historically, countries have relied on 'passive disinvestment'; however, due to (1) the availability of new cost-effectiveness evidence, or (2) 'leakage' in drug utilisation, or (3) market failure in terms of price competition, there is an increasing focus towards 'active disinvestment'. Isolating low-value drugs that would create headroom for innovative new products to enter the market is also motivating disinvestment efforts by multiple parties, including industry. Historically, disinvestment has mainly taken the form of price reductions, especially when market failures are perceived to exist, and restricting treatment to subpopulations, particularly when a drug is no longer considered value for money. There is considerable experimentation internationally in mechanisms for disinvestment and the opportunity for countries to learn from each other. Ongoing evaluation of disinvestment strategies is essential, and ought to be reported in the peer-reviewed literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although statins have been shown to re duce the risk of cardiovascular events in pa tients at low cardiovascular risk, their absolute benefit is small in the short term, which may adversely affect cost-effectiveness. We sought to determine the long-term cost-effectiveness (beyond the duration of clinical trials) of low- and high-potency statins in patients at low cardiovascular risk and to estimate the impact on Canada's publicly funded health care system. Methods: Using Markov modelling, we performed a cost-utility analysis in which we compared low-potency statins (fluvastatin, lovastatin, prava statin and simvastatin) and high-potency statins (atorva statin and rosuvastatin) with no statins in a simulated cohort of low-risk pa tients over a lifetime horizon. Model outcomes included costs (in 2010 Can adian dollars), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained and the cost per QALY gained. Results: Over a lifetime horizon, the cost of managing a patient at low cardiovascular risk was estimated to be about $10 100 without statins, $15 200 with low-potency statins and $16 400 with high-potency statins. The cost per QALY gained with high-potency statins (v. no statins) was $21 300; the use of lowpotency statins was not considered economically attractive. These results were robust to sensitivity analyses, although their use became economically unattractive when the duration of benefit from statin use was assumed to be less than 10 years. Interpretation: Use of high-potency statins in pa tients at low cardiovascular risk was associated with a cost per QALY gained that was economically attractive by current standards, assuming that the benefit from statin use would continue for at least 10 years. However, the overall expenditure on statins would be substantial, and the ramifications of this practice should be carefully considered by policy-makers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study which compared how clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence is used in drug coverage decisions in Great Britain, Australia and Canada. Retrospective data from the Common Drug Review (CDR) of Canada, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in Great Britain, and Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) of Australia were analyzed by the authors. It was found that recommendations were made by the three agencies that were consistent with evidence on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. A comment on the study is presented.

Background: The aim of palliative care is to improve the quality of life of patients and families through the prevention and relief of suffering. Frequently, patients may choose to receive palliative care in the home. The objective of this paper is to summarize the quality and primary outcomes measured within the palliative care in the home literature. This will synthesize the current state of the literature and inform future work. Methods: A scoping review was completed using PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EconLit, PsycINFO, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database were searched from inception to August 2016. Inclusion criteria included: 1) care was provided in the “home of the patient” as defined by the study, 2) outcomes were reported, and 3) reported original data. Thematic component analysis was completed to categorize interventions. Results: Fifty-three studies formed the final data set. The literature varied extensively. Five themes were identified: accessibility of healthcare, caregiver support, individualized patient centered care, multidisciplinary care provision, and quality improvement. Primary outcomes were resource use, symptom burden, quality of life, satisfaction, caregiver distress, place of death, cost analysis, or described experiences. The majority of studies were of moderate or unclear quality. Conclusions: There is robust literature of varying quality, assessing different components of palliative care in the home interventions, and measuring different outcomes. To be meaningful to patients, these interventions need to be consistently evaluated with outcomes that matter to patients. Future research could focus on reaching a consensus for outcomes to evaluate palliative care in the home interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An abstract on a study that determines the benefits of cost-effective intervention for universally funding smoking cessation pharmacotherapy is presented.