We sought to summarize and assess original evaluations of the economic impact of clinical pharmacy services published from 1996–2000, and to provide recommendations and methodologic considerations for future research. A systematic literature search was conducted to identify articles that were then blinded and randomly assigned to reviewers who confirmed inclusion and abstracted key information. Results were compared with those of a similar review of literature published from 1988–1995. In the 59 included articles, the studies were conducted across a variety of practice sites that consisted of hospitals (52%), community pharmacies and clinics (41%), health maintenance organizations (3%), and long‐term or intermediate care facilities (3%). They focused on a broad range of clinical pharmacy services such as general pharmacotherapeutic monitoring (47%), target drug programs (20%), disease management programs (10%), and patient education or cognitive services (10%). Compared with the studies of the previous review, a greater proportion of evaluations were conducted in community pharmacies or clinics, and the types of services evaluated tended to be more comprehensive rather than specialized. Articles were categorized by type of evaluation: 36% were considered outcome analyses, 24% full economic analyses, 17% outcome descriptions, 15% cost and outcome descriptions, and 8% cost analyses. Compared with the studies of the previous review, a greater proportion of studies in the current review used more rigorous study designs. Most studies reported positive financial benefits of the clinical pharmacy service evaluated. In 16 studies, a benefit:cost ratio was reported by the authors or was able to be calculated by the reviewers (these ranged from 1.7:1–17.0:1, median 4.68:1). The body of literature from this 5‐year period provides continued evidence of the economic benefit of clinical pharmacy services. Although the quality of study design has improved, whenever possible, future evaluations of this type should incorporate methodologies that will further enhance the strength of evidence of this literature and the conclusions that may be drawn from it.
Rationale: Few previous studies have evaluated primary adherence (whether a new prescription is filled within 30 d) to controller medications in individuals with persistent asthma.Objective: To compare adherence to the major controller medication regimens for asthma.Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of enrollees from five large health plans. We used electronic medical data on patients of all ages with asthma who had experienced an asthma-related exacerbation in the prior 12 months. We studied adherence measures including proportion of days covered and primary adherence (first prescription filled within 30 d).Measurements and Main Results: Our population included 69,652 subjects who had probable persistent asthma and were prescribed inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs), leukotriene antagonists (LTRAs), or ICS/long-acting b-agonists (ICS/LABAs). The mean age was 37 years and 58% were female. We found that 14-20% of subjects who were prescribed controller medicines for the first time did not fill their prescriptions. The mean proportion of days covered was 19% for ICS, 30% for LTRA, and 25% for ICS/LABA over 12 months. Using multivariate logistic regression, subjects prescribed LTRA were less likely to be primary adherent than subjects prescribed ICS (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.92) or ICS/LABA (odds ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.97). Black and Latino patients were less likely to fill the prescription compared with white patients.Conclusions: Adherence to controller medications for asthma is poor. In this insured population, primary adherence to ICSs was better than to LTRAs and ICS/LABAs. Adherence as measured by proportion of days covered was better for LTRAs and ICS/LABAs than for ICSs.
An observational cohort analysis was conducted within the Surveillance, Prevention, and Management of Diabetes Mellitus (SUPREME-DM) DataLink, a consortium of 11 integrated health-care delivery systems with electronic health records in 10 US states. Among nearly 7 million adults aged 20 years or older, we estimated annual diabetes incidence per 1,000 persons overall and by age, sex, race/ethnicity, and body mass index. We identified 289,050 incident cases of diabetes. Age- and sex-adjusted population incidence was stable between 2006 and 2010, ranging from 10.3 per 1,000 adults (95% confidence interval (CI): 9.8, 10.7) to 11.3 per 1,000 adults (95% CI: 11.0, 11.7). Adjusted incidence was significantly higher in 2011 (11.5, 95% CI: 10.9, 12.0) than in the 2 years with the lowest incidence. A similar pattern was observed in most prespecified subgroups, but only the differences for persons who were not white were significant. In 2006, 56% of incident cases had a glycated hemoglobin (hemoglobin A1c) test as one of the pair of events identifying diabetes. By 2011, that number was 74%. In conclusion, overall diabetes incidence in this population did not significantly increase between 2006 and 2010, but increases in hemoglobin A1c testing may have contributed to rising diabetes incidence among nonwhites in 2011.
IntroductionElectronic health record (EHR) data enhance opportunities for conducting surveillance of diabetes. The objective of this study was to identify the number of people with diabetes from a diabetes DataLink developed as part of the SUPREME-DM (SUrveillance, PREvention, and ManagEment of Diabetes Mellitus) project, a consortium of 11 integrated health systems that use comprehensive EHR data for research.MethodsWe identified all members of 11 health care systems who had any enrollment from January 2005 through December 2009. For these members, we searched inpatient and outpatient diagnosis codes, laboratory test results, and pharmaceutical dispensings from January 2000 through December 2009 to create indicator variables that could potentially identify a person with diabetes. Using this information, we estimated the number of people with diabetes and among them, the number of incident cases, defined as indication of diabetes after at least 2 years of continuous health system enrollment.ResultsThe 11 health systems contributed 15,765,529 unique members, of whom 1,085,947 (6.9%) met 1 or more study criteria for diabetes. The nonstandardized proportion meeting study criteria for diabetes ranged from 4.2% to 12.4% across sites. Most members with diabetes (88%) met multiple criteria. Of the members with diabetes, 428,349 (39.4%) were incident cases.ConclusionThe SUPREME-DM DataLink is a unique resource that provides an opportunity to conduct comparative effectiveness research, epidemiologic surveillance including longitudinal analyses, and population-based care management studies of people with diabetes. It also provides a useful data source for pragmatic clinical trials of prevention or treatment interventions.
OBJECTIVEThe objective of this study was to assess the incidence of major cardiovascular (CV) hospitalization events and all-cause deaths among adults with diabetes with or without CV disease (CVD) associated with inadequately controlled glycated hemoglobin (A1C), high LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), high blood pressure (BP), and current smoking.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSStudy subjects included 859,617 adults with diabetes enrolled for more than 6 months during 2005–2011 in a network of 11 U.S. integrated health care organizations. Inadequate risk factor control was classified as LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL, A1C ≥7% (53 mmol/mol), BP ≥140/90 mm Hg, or smoking. Major CV events were based on primary hospital discharge diagnoses for myocardial infarction (MI) and acute coronary syndrome (ACS), stroke, or heart failure (HF). Five-year incidence rates, rate ratios, and average attributable fractions were estimated using multivariable Poisson regression models.RESULTSMean (SD) age at baseline was 59 (14) years; 48% of subjects were female, 45% were white, and 31% had CVD. Mean follow-up was 59 months. Event rates per 100 person-years for adults with diabetes and CVD versus those without CVD were 6.0 vs. 1.7 for MI/ACS, 5.3 vs. 1.5 for stroke, 8.4 vs. 1.2 for HF, 18.1 vs. 40 for all CV events, and 23.5 vs. 5.0 for all-cause mortality. The percentages of CV events and deaths associated with inadequate risk factor control were 11% and 3%, respectively, for those with CVD and 34% and 7%, respectively, for those without CVD.CONCLUSIONSAdditional attention to traditional CV risk factors could yield further substantive reductions in CV events and mortality in adults with diabetes.
Purpose To validate an algorithm based upon International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) documented within the Mini-Sentinel Distributed Database (MSDD). Methods Using an ICD-9-CM-based algorithm (hospitalized patients with 410.x0 or 410.x1 in primary position), we identified a random sample of potential cases of AMI in 2009 from 4 Data Partners participating in the Mini-Sentinel Program. Cardiologist reviewers used information abstracted from hospital records to assess the likelihood of an AMI diagnosis based on criteria from the joint European Society of Cardiology and American College of Cardiology Global Task Force. Positive predictive values (PPVs) of the ICD-9-based algorithm were calculated. Results Of the 153 potential cases of AMI identified, hospital records for 143 (93%) were retrieved and abstracted. Overall, the PPV was 86.0% (95% confidence interval; 79.2%, 91.2%). PPVs ranged from 76.3% to 94.3% across the 4 Data Partners. Conclusions The overall PPV of potential AMI cases, as identified using an ICD-9-CM-based algorithm, may be acceptable for safety surveillance; however, PPVs do vary across Data Partners. This validation effort provides a contemporary estimate of the reliability of this algorithm for use in future surveillance efforts conducted using the FDA’s MSDD.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.