Dataset Information

Rational prescribing in primary care (RaPP): economic evaluation of an intervention to improve professional practice.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Interventions designed to narrow the gap between research findings and clinical practice may be effective, but also costly. Economic evaluations are necessary to judge whether such interventions are worth the effort. We have evaluated the economic effects of a tailored intervention to support the implementation of guidelines for the use of antihypertensive and cholesterol-lowering drugs. The tailored intervention was evaluated in a randomized trial, and was shown to significantly increase the use of thiazides for patients started on antihypertensive medication, but had little or no impact on other outcomes. The increased use of thiazides was not expected to have an impact on health outcomes.

Methods and findings

We performed cost-minimization and cost-effectiveness analyses on data from a randomized trial involving 146 general practices from two geographical areas in Norway. Each practice was randomized to either the tailored intervention (70 practices; 257 physicians) or control group (69 practices; 244 physicians). Only patients that were being started on antihypertensive medication were included in the analyses. A multifaceted intervention was tailored to address identified barriers to change. Key components were an educational outreach visit with audit and feedback, and computerized reminders. Pharmacists conducted the visits. A cost-minimization framework was adopted, where the costs of intervention were set against the reduced treatment costs (principally due to increased use of thiazides rather than more expensive medication). The cost-effectiveness of the intervention was estimated as the cost per additional patient being started on thiazides. The net annual cost (cost minimization) in our study population was 53,395 US dollars, corresponding to 763 US dollars per practice. The cost per additional patient started on thiazides (cost-effectiveness) was 454 US dollars. The net annual savings in a national program was modeled to be 761,998 US dollars, or 540 US dollars per practice after 2 y. In this scenario the savings exceeded the costs in all but two of the sensitivity analyses we conducted, and the cost-effectiveness was estimated to be 183 US dollars.

Conclusions

We found a significant shift in prescribing of antihypertensive drugs towards the use of thiazides in our trial. A major reason to promote the use of thiazides is their lower price compared to other drugs. The cost of the intervention was more than twice the savings within the time frame of our study. However, we predict modest savings over a 2-y period.

SUBMITTER: Fretheim A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1472698 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA gap exists between evidence and practice regarding the management of cardiovascular risk factors. This gap could be narrowed if systematically developed clinical practice guidelines were effectively implemented in clinical practice. We evaluated the effects of a tailored intervention to support the implementation of systematically developed guidelines for the use of antihypertensive and cholesterol-lowering drugs for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.Methods and findingsWe conducted a cluster-randomized trial comparing a tailored intervention to passive dissemination of guidelines in 146 general practices in two geographical areas in Norway. Each practice was randomized to either the tailored intervention (70 practices; 257 physicians) or control group (69 practices; 244 physicians). Patients started on medication for hypertension or hypercholesterolemia during the study period and all patients already on treatment that consulted their physician during the trial were included. A multifaceted intervention was tailored to address identified barriers to change. Key components were an educational outreach visit with audit and feedback, and computerized reminders linked to the medical record system. Pharmacists conducted the visits. Outcomes were measured for all eligible patients seen in the participating practices during 1 y before and after the intervention. The main outcomes were the proportions of (1) first-time prescriptions for hypertension where thiazides were prescribed, (2) patients assessed for cardiovascular risk before prescribing antihypertensive or cholesterol-lowering drugs, and (3) patients treated for hypertension or hypercholesterolemia for 3 mo or more who had achieved recommended treatment goals. The intervention led to an increase in adherence to guideline recommendations on choice of antihypertensive drug. Thiazides were prescribed to 17% of patients in the intervention group versus 11% in the control group (relative risk 1.94; 95% confidence interval 1.49-2.49, adjusted for baseline differences and clustering effect). Little or no differences were found for risk assessment prior to prescribing and for achievement of treatment goals.ConclusionsOur tailored intervention had a significant impact on prescribing of antihypertensive drugs, but was ineffective in improving the quality of other aspects of managing hypertension and hypercholesterolemia in primary care.

Project description:ObjectiveTo study antibiotic prescriptions among 0- to 4-year-old children before and after implementing a quality project on prudent prescribing of antibiotics in primary healthcare in the capital region of Iceland.DesignAn observational, descriptive, retrospective study using quantitative methodology.SettingPrimary healthcare in the Reykjavik area with a total population of approximately 220,000.SubjectsA total of 6420 children 0-4 years of age presenting at the primary healthcare centres in the metropolitan area over three years from 2016 to 2018.Main outcome measuresReduction of antibiotic prescriptions and change in antibiotic profile. Data on antibiotic prescriptions for children 0-4 years of age was obtained from the medical records. Out-of-hours prescriptions were not included in the database.ResultsThe number of prescriptions during the study period ranged from 263.6 to 289.6 prescriptions/1000 inhabitants/year. A reduction of 9% in the total number of prescriptions between 2017-2018 was observed. More than half of all prescriptions were for otitis media, followed by pneumonia and skin infections. Amoxicillin accounted for over half of all prescriptions, increasing between 2016 and 2018 by 51.3%. During this period, the prescribing of co-amoxiclav and macrolides decreased by 52.3% and 40.7%, respectively. These changes were significant in all cases, p < 0.0001.ConclusionThe results show an overall decrease in antibiotic prescribing concurrent with a change in the choice of antibiotics prescribed and in line with the recommendations presented in the prescribing guidelines implemented by the Primary Healthcare of the Capital Area, and consistent with the project's goals.Key pointsA substantial proportion of antibiotic prescribing can be considered inappropriate and the antibiotic prescription rate is highest in Iceland of the Nordic countries.After implementing guidance on the treatment of common infections together with feedback on antibiotic prescribing, a decrease in the total number of prescriptions accompanied by a shift in the antibiotic profile was observed.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Limited evidence suggests integration of pharmacists into the general practice team could improve medicines management for patients, particularly those with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. This study aimed to develop and assess the feasibility of an intervention involving pharmacists, working within general practices, to optimise prescribing in Ireland. DESIGN:Non-randomised pilot study. SETTING:Primary care in Ireland. PARTICIPANTS:Four general practices, purposively sampled and recruited to reflect a range of practice sizes and demographic profiles. INTERVENTION:A pharmacist joined the practice team for 6?months (10?hours/week) and undertook medication reviews (face to face or chart based) for adult patients, provided prescribing advice, supported clinical audits and facilitated practice-based education. OUTCOME MEASURES:Anonymised practice-level medication (eg, medication changes) and cost data were collected. Patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) data were collected on a subset of older adults (aged ?65 years) with polypharmacy using patient questionnaires, before and 6?weeks after medication review by the pharmacist. RESULTS:Across four practices, 786 patients were identified as having 1521 prescribing issues by the pharmacists. Issues relating to deprescribing medications were addressed most often by the prescriber (59.8%), compared with cost-related issues (5.8%). Medication changes made during the study equated to approximately €57?000 in cost savings assuming they persisted for 12 months. Ninety-six patients aged ?65 years with polypharmacy were recruited from the four practices for PROM data collection and 64 (66.7%) were followed up. There were no changes in patients' treatment burden or attitudes to deprescribing following medication review, and there were conflicting changes in patients' self-reported quality of life. CONCLUSIONS:This non-randomised pilot study demonstrated that an intervention involving pharmacists, working within general practices is feasible to implement and has potential to improve prescribing quality. This study provides rationale to conduct a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of this intervention.

Project description:BackgroundIncreasing antimicrobial resistance is a serious societal challenge affecting outpatient, inpatient and veterinary care. The German One-Health project, RAI (Rational use of Antibiotics via Information and Communication) addresses all three sectors. In the outpatient sector, General Practitioners (GPs) are the main prescribers of antibiotics and were therefore, targeted for this study. A multimodal intervention focusing on Acute Respiratory Tract infections (ARI) was designed and implemented. The aim of this study was to evaluate acceptance, rating and the self-reported impact of the intervention among GPs.MethodsThe intervention offered six tools: a GP training on rational antibiotic use, an app for self-monitoring, a leaflet and a set of posters (both for use as information materials in waiting rooms) and both digital and printed information prescriptions (material for 'prescribing' information instead of an antibiotic to the patient). The tools could be used according to individual preferences. The intervention was conducted between August 2016 and July 2017. Following the intervention, a three pages anonymous questionnaire was sent to all 271 participants. Items covered socio-demographic and professional background, use and judgement of the intervention tools (6 point Likert scale), impact of the intervention tools (4 point Likert scale).ResultsThe response rate was 39% (n = 107). On average, respondents used 3.1 of the six available tools, with printed information prescriptions used most frequently (79%). Digital information prescriptions were used more frequently by men than by women (OR 2.8; 95% CI 1.16-7.24; p = 0.02). Eighty-seven percent of respondents stated that information prescriptions supported doctor-patient communication. In a comparison of the overall impression of the different intervention tools the GP training on rational antibiotic use was rated best (1.67 on a 6 point scale with 1 = highest, 6 = lowest) and most often noted as having had a "strong" or "very strong" impact on personal antibiotic prescribing behavior.ConclusionsThe multimodal intervention addressing education and communication was well accepted among GPs and could help in fostering rational use of antibiotics in primary care.

Project description:ImportanceThe economic impact of continuous professional development (CPD) education is incompletely understood.ObjectiveTo systematically identify and synthesize published research examining the costs associated with physician CPD for drug prescribing.Evidence reviewMEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, and the Cochrane Database were searched from inception to April 23, 2020, for comparative studies that evaluated the cost of CPD focused on drug prescribing. Two reviewers independently screened all articles for inclusion and reviewed all included articles to extract data on participants, educational interventions, study designs, and outcomes (costs and effectiveness). Results were synthesized for educational costs, health care costs, and cost-effectiveness.FindingsOf 3338 articles screened, 38 were included in this analysis. These studies included at least 15 659 health care professionals and 1 963 197 patients. Twelve studies reported on educational costs, ranging from $281 to $183 554 (median, $15 664). When economic outcomes were evaluated, 31 of 33 studies (94%) comparing CPD with no intervention found that CPD was associated with reduced health care costs (drug costs), ranging from $4731 to $6 912 000 (median, $79 373). Four studies found reduced drug costs for 1-on-1 outreach compared with other CPD approaches. Regarding cost-effectiveness, among 5 studies that compared CPD with no intervention, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for a 10% improvement in prescribing ranged from $15 390 to $437 027 to train all program participants. Four comparisons of alternative CPD approaches found that 1-on-1 educational outreach was more effective but more expensive than group education or mailed materials (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $18-$4105 per physician trained).Conclusions and relevanceIn this systematic review, CPD for drug prescribing was associated with reduced health care (drug) costs. The educational costs and cost-effectiveness of CPD varied widely. Several CPD instructional approaches (including educational outreach) were more effective but more costly than comparators.