Objectives: This study estimated the cost-effectiveness of pharmacist discharge counseling on medication-related morbidity in both the high-risk elderly and general US population. Methods: A cost-effectiveness decision analytic model was developed using a health care system perspective based on published clinical trials. Costs included direct medical costs, and the effectiveness unit was patients discharged without suffering a subsequent adverse drug event. A systematic review of published studies was conducted to estimate variable probabilities in the cost-effectiveness model. To test the robustness of the results, a second-order probabilistic sensitivity analysis (Monte Carlo simulation) was used to run 10 000 cases through the model sampling across all distributions simultaneously. Results: Pharmacist counseling at hospital discharge provided a small, but statistically significant, clinical improvement at a similar overall cost. Pharmacist counseling was cost saving in approximately 48% of scenarios and in the remaining scenarios had a low willingness-to-pay threshold for all scenarios being cost-effective. In addition, discharge counseling was more cost-effective in the high-risk elderly population compared to the general population. Conclusion: This cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that discharge counseling by pharmacists is quite cost-effective and estimated to be cost saving in over 48% of cases. High-risk elderly patients appear to especially benefit from these pharmacist services.

Objective Few studies have compared the risk of recurrent falls across different types of analgesic use, and were limited to adjust for potential confounders (e.g., pain/depression severity). We aimed to assess analgesic use and the subsequent risk of recurrent falls, among participants with or at risk of knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods A longitudinal analysis included 4,231 participants aged 45–79 years at baseline with 4-year follow-up from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI) cohort study. We grouped participants into six mutually exclusive subgroups based on annually assessed analgesic use in the following hierarchical order of analgesic/central nervous system potency: use of (1)opioids, (2)antidepressants, (3)other prescription pain medications, (4)over-the-counter pain medications, (5)nutraceuticals, and (6)no analgesics. We used multivariable modified Poisson regression models with a robust error variance to estimate the effect of analgesic use on the risk of recurrent falls(≥2) in the following year, adjusted for demographics and health status/behavior factors. Results Opioid use increased from 2.7% at baseline to 3.6% at the 36-month visit (>80% using other analgesics/nutraceuticals), while other prescription pain medication use decreased from 16.7% to 11.9% over this time period. Approximately 15% of participants reported recurrent falls. Compared to those not using analgesics, participants used opioids and/or antidepressants had a 22–25% increased risk of recurrent falls (opioids: RRadjusted=1.22, 95%CI=1.04–1.45; antidepressants: RRadjusted=1.25, 95%CI=1.10–1.41). Conclusion Participants with or at risk of knee OA who were on opioids and antidepressants with/without other analgesics/nutraceuticals may have an increased risk of recurrent falls after adjusting for potential confounders. Use of opioids and antidepressants warrants caution.

The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve suggests that non-CMR interventions were less costly and more effective than CMRs; however, there was overlap in the 95% CIs for costs and ADEs prevented. In all cases, the CEAC demonstrated that non-CMRs were the most economical intervention with regard to time and cost. Non-CMRs show promise as a viable method to address MRPs, reduce ADEs, and improve patient-related health outcomes.

No abstract

BACKGROUND: Hypoglycemia is a major limiting factor in achieving glycemic control in persons with diabetes. In some instances, recovery from a severe hypoglycemia event may require health care resource utilization (HCRU), including the use of emergency medical services (EMS), visits to the emergency department (ED), and inpatient hospitalization. OBJECTIVES: To (a) describe the profiles of patients who experience severe hypoglycemic events and (b) characterize HCRU and the associated cost related to severe hypoglycemia treatment. METHODS: This retrospective, observational cohort study used administrative claims data from IBM MarketScan Research Databases.The study examined a cohort of subjects who experienced severe hypoglycemic events that involved HCRU during the 1-year index period. Baseline patient demographic data were collected according to patient profiles, such as payer type, type of diabetes, age, and type of insulin. HCRU and the associated cost data categorized by the patient profiles and care progression scenarios were described. RESULTS: 9,563 patients from the IBM MarketScan Research Databases experienced a severe hypoglycemic event during the index period and were included in the study; approximately 75% of those patients did not experience a severe hypoglycemic event in the previous year. Of the 9,563 patients in the cohort, the largest patient profile (n = 1,767, 18.5%) consisted of those who were on Medicaid, had type 2 diabetes, and used basal/bolus or premixed-only insulins. Overall, more than 90% of the index severe hypoglycemic events involved visits to the ED. EMS claims in the 24 hours before the ED visit were found for half of the severe hypoglycemic events (51.5%). CONCLUSIONS:Differences in HCRU and the associated costs for the treatment of severe hypoglycemia were observed among patients based on insurance, diabetes, and insulin types. Clinicians need to be aware