Nearly 30% of adults 40 years and older in the United States are on a statin. Their widespread use heightens the importance of careful consideration of their varied effects on the body. Although randomized controlled trials have not confirmed cognitive impairing effects with statins, continuing evidence suggests statins have the ability to cause reversible cognitive impairment in some patients. Paradoxically, statins have also been shown to decrease the risk of dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, and improve cognitive impairment in some cases. However, randomized controlled trials have similarly failed to find the beneficial effect. Supporting evidence for both claims is compelling whereas known limitations of the clinical trials may explain the lack of findings. This narrative review aims to explain why there is still controversy and how both effects can, and may, be possible. The mechanisms that have been hypothesized for each effect are seemingly independent from one another and may explain the contradicting results. Being mindful of the complex effects of statins, health care providers need to be able to identify patients who are at risk for or already experiencing cognitive impairment from statin use while also identifying those who could potentially decrease their risk of dementia with statins.

Chronic inflammatory diseases are complex to treat and have an impact on a large number of patients. Due to the difficulty of treating these diseases and the great impact on quality of life, patients often seek off-label, complimentary, or alternative medicines to gain relief from symptoms. Low-dose naltrexone has been used off-label for treatment of pain and inflammation in multiple sclerosis, Crohn's disease, fibromyalgia, and other diseases. Naltrexone is a mu-opioid receptor antagonist indicated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for opioid and alcohol dependence. It is hypothesized that lower than standard doses of naltrexone inhibit cellular proliferation of T and B cells and block Toll-like receptor 4, resulting in an analgesic and antiinflammatory effect. It is the purpose of this review to examine the evidence of the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of low-dose naltrexone for use in chronic pain and inflammatory conditions. Currently, evidence supports the safety and tolerability of low-dose naltrexone in multiple sclerosis, fibromyalgia, and Crohn's disease. Fewer studies support the efficacy of low-dose naltrexone, with most of these focusing on subjective measures such as quality of life or self-reported pain. These studies do demonstrate that low-dose naltrexone has subjective benefits over placebo, but evidence for more objective measures is limited. However, further randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the efficacy of low-dose naltrexone due to insufficient evidence supporting its use in these disease states. This review provides practitioners with the extent of low-dose naltrexone evidence so that they can be cognizant of situations where it may not be the most appropriate therapy.

No abstract

Studies evaluating the cost-effectiveness of clinical pharmacy services (CPS) are needed to justify implementation and reimbursement. Through a systematic review, we describe services provided by pharmacists and their economic outcomes. We conducted a literature search of published studies in PubMed, Ovid, and Embase from January 2011 through December 2017. Manuscripts evaluating a CPS with patient-level economic outcomes and conducted in the United States were included. Study risks of bias were classified by study design characteristics. Economic evaluations were classified according to the presence of a comparator, and cost and outcome measures included. The quality of full economic evaluations was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize CPS characteristics. After screening, 115 studies wereincluded. Type of service provided included general pharmacotherapy (41%), disease management (30%), and targeted drug program (17%). Settings included hospital (34%), ambulatory care (28%), and community pharmacy (17%). Study designs were considered high risk of bias (use of a historical control group or no control group) in 69% of cases while 25% were medium risk of bias (non-randomized with a concurrent control group) and 6% were low risk of bias (randomized experimental or multigroup interrupted time series). Economic evaluation types were descriptive studies that measured cost and/or outcomes of a CPS (55%), comparative studies that measured cost or outcomes of a CPS and a comparator (37%), and full evaluations that measured cost and outcomes of a CPS and a comparator (8%). Among nine full evaluations, the median (range) QHES score was 74 (59-95) and four reported the CPS as being more effective at a lower cost. Few full economic evaluations were conducted, but supported the cost-effectiveness of CPS. Use of a comparator group and measurement of economic inputs and outcomes would strengthen the body of evidence. K E Y W O R D Scost-benefit analysis, health services research, pharmacoeconomics, pharmacy

No abstract

Background Determining the relative cost-effectiveness between advanced therapeutic options for ulcerative colitis (UC) may optimize resource utilization. We evaluated total cost per response, cost per remission, and cost of safety events for patients with moderately-to-severely active UC after 52 weeks of treatment with advanced therapies at standard dosing. Methods An analytic model was developed to estimate costs from the US healthcare system perspective associated with achieving efficacy outcomes and managing safety outcomes for advanced therapies approved for the treatment of UC. Numbers needed to treat (NNT) for response and remission, and numbers needed to harm (NNH) for serious adverse events (SAEs) and serious infections (SIs) were derived from a network meta-analysis of pivotal trials. NNT for induction and maintenance were combined with drug regimen costs to calculate cost per clinical remission. Cost of managing AEs was calculated using NNH for safety outcomes and published costs of treating respective AEs. Results Costs per remission were $205,240, $249,417, $267,463, $365,050, $579,622, $750,200, and $787,998 for tofacitinib 10 mg, tofacitinib 5 mg, infliximab, vedolizumab, golimumab, adalimumab, and ustekinumab, respectively. Incremental costs of SAEs and SIs collectively were $136,390, $90,333, $31,888, $31,061, $20,049, $12,059, and $0 for tofacitinib 5 mg, golimumab, adalimumab, tofacitinib 10 mg, infliximab, ustekinumab, and vedolizumab (reference), respectively. Conclusions Tofacitinib was associated with the lowest cost per response and cost per remission, while vedolizumab had the lowest costs related to SAEs and SIs. Balancing efficacy versus safety is important when evaluating the costs associated with treatment of moderate-to-severe UC.

No abstract

No abstract