General practitioner practice-based pharmacist input to medicines optimisation in the UK: pragmatic, multicenter, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Changing demographics across the UK has led to general practitioners (GPs) managing increasing numbers of older patients with multi-morbidity and resultant polypharmacy. Through government led initiatives within the National Health Service, an increasing number of GP practices employ pharmacist support. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of a medicines optimisation intervention, delivered by GP practice-based pharmacists, to patients at risk of medication-related problems (MRPs), on patient outcomes and healthcare costs. METHODS: A multi-centre, randomised (normal care or pharmacist supplemented care) study in four regions of the UK, involving patients (n = 356) from eight GP practices, with a 6-month follow-up period. Participants were adult patients who were at risk of MRPs. RESULTS: Median number of MRPs per intervention patient were reduced at the third assessment, i.e. 3 to 0.5 (p < 0.001) in patients who received the full intervention schedule. Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI) scores were reduced (medications more appropriate) for the intervention group, but not for control group patients (8 [4-13] to 5 [0-11] vs 8 [3-13] to 7 [3-12], respectively; p = 0.001). Using the intention-to-treat (ITT) approach, the number of telephone consultations in intervention group patients was reduced and different from the control group (1 [0-3] to 1 [0-2] vs 1 [0-2] to 1 [0-3], p = 0.020). No significant differences between groups were, however, found in unplanned hospital admissions, length of hospital stay, number of A&E attendances or outpatient visits. The mean overall healthcare cost per intervention patient fell from £1041.7 ± 1446.7 to £859.1 ± 1235.2 (p = 0.032). Cost utility analysis showed an incremental cost per patient of - £229.0 (95% CI - 594.6, 128.2) and a mean QALY gained of 0.024 (95% CI - 0.021 to 0.065), i.e. indicative of a health status gain at a reduced cost (2016/2017). CONCLUSION: The pharmacist service was effective in reducing MRPs, inappropriateness of medications and telephone consultations in general practice in a cost-effective manner. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.Gov, NCT03241498. Registered 7 August 2017-Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03241498.

Impact of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection: hospitalization and patient quality of life.

Objectives: Data quantifying outcomes of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (rCDI) are lacking. We sought to determine the UK hospital resource use and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) associated with rCDI hospitalizations. Patients and methods: A non-interventional study in six UK acute hospitals collected retrospective clinical and resource use data from medical records of 64 adults hospitalized for rCDI and 64 matched inpatient controls with a first episode only (f)CDI. Patients were observed from the index event (date rCDI/fCDI confirmed) for 28 days (or death, if sooner); UK-specific reference costs were applied. HRQoL was assessed prospectively in a separate cohort of 30 patients hospitalized with CDI, who completed the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire during their illness. Results: The median total management cost (post-index) was £7539 and £6294 for rCDI and fCDI, respectively (cost difference, P = 0.075); median length of stay was 21 days and 15.5 days, respectively (P = 0.269). The median cost difference between matched rCDI and fCDI cases was £689 (IQR=£1873-£3954). Subgroup analysis demonstrated the highest median costs (£8542/patient) in severe rCDI cases. CDI management costs were driven primarily by hospital length of stay, which accounted for >85% of costs in both groups. Mean EQ-5D index values were 46% lower in CDI patients compared with UK population values (0.42 and 0.78, respectively); EQ visual analogue scale scores were 38% lower (47.82 and 77.3, respectively). Conclusions: CDI has considerable impact on patients and healthcare resources. This multicentre study provides a contemporaneous estimate of the real-world UK costs associated with rCDI management, which are substantial and comparable to fCDI costs.

Cost-effectiveness of ceftolozane/tazobactam plus metronidazole compared with piperacillin/tazobactam as empiric therapy for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections based on the in-vitro surveillance of bacterial isolates in the UK.

AIMS: An increase in the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance among gram-negative pathogens has been noted recently. A challenge in empiric treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI) is identifying initial appropriate antibiotic therapy, which is associated with reduced length of stay and mortality compared with inappropriate therapy. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of ceftolozane/tazobactam + metronidazole compared with piperacillin/tazobactam (commonly used in this indication) in the treatment of patients with cIAI in UK hospitals. METHODS: A decision-analytic Monte Carlo simulation model was used to compare costs (antibiotic and hospitalization costs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of patients infected with gram-negative cIAI and treated empirically with either ceftolozane/tazobactam + metronidazole or piperacillin/tazobactam. Bacterial isolates were randomly drawn from the Program to Assess Ceftolozane/Tazobactam Susceptibility (PACTS) database, a surveillance database of non-duplicate bacterial isolates collected from patients in the UK infected with gram-negative pathogens. Susceptibility to initial empiric therapy was based on the measured susceptibilities reported in the PACTS database. RESULTS: Ceftolozane/tazobactam + metronidazole was cost-effective when compared with piperacillin/tazobactam, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £4,350/QALY and 0.36 hospitalization days/patient saved. Costs in the ceftolozane/tazobactam + metronidazole arm were £2,576/patient, compared with £2,168/patient in the piperacillin/tazobactam arm. The ceftolozane/tazobactam + metronidazole arm experienced a greater number of QALYs than the piperacillin/tazobactam arm (14.31/patient vs 14.21/patient, respectively). Ceftolozane/tazobactam + metronidazole remained cost-effective in one-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Economic models can help to identify the appropriate choice of empiric therapy for the treatment of cIAI. Results indicated that empiric use of ceftolozane/tazobactam + metronidazole is cost-effective vs piperacillin/tazobactam in UK patients with cIAI at risk of resistant infection. This will be valuable to commissioners and clinicians to aid decision-making on the targeting of resources for appropriate antibiotic therapy under the premise of antimicrobial stewardship.