Evidence for deprescription in primary care through an umbrella review.

BACKGROUND: There is a high prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescriptions in primary care. This is associated with more frequent adverse events, lower quality of life and more frequent visits to hospital accident & emergency departments. The aim of the present study is to summarise available evidence on the effectiveness of deprescription interventions in primary care, and to describe the barriers and enablers of the process from the point of view of patients and healthcare professionals. METHODS: We designed an umbrella review which includes nine systematic reviews. More than 50% of included studies were performed with adults in primary care. Two reviewers independently performed data extraction and analysis. RESULTS: In considering studies of the effectiveness of interventions, it can be observed that the educational component of deprescription procedures is a key factor, whilst procedures tailored towards the patient's situation offer better results. With regards to studies involving healthcare professionals, the main explored areas were the balance between risks and benefits, and the need to improve communication with patients as well as other colleagues involved in patient care. Amongst the identified barriers we found lack of time, inability to access all information, being stuck in a routine, resistance to change and a lack of willingness to question the prescription decisions made by healthcare colleagues. With regards to patients, it is clear that they have worries and doubts. In order to overcome these issues, a good relationship with healthcare professionals and receipt of their support is required during the process. CONCLUSIONS: Optimizing medication through targeted deprescribing is an important part of managing chronic conditions, avoiding adverse effects and improving outcomes. The majority of deprescription interventions in primary care are effective. Good communication between healthcare professionals is a key element for success in the deprescription process.

Cost-effectiveness of lenalidomide maintenance in patients with multiple myeloma who have undergone autologous transplant of hematopoietic progenitor cells.

The objective of this article is to analyze the ratio of cost-effectiveness and budgetary impact of lenalidomide treatment in patients with multiple myeloma who have undergone autologous transplant in Spain. The analyses were based on clinical trials CALGB 100104 and IFM 2005-02, from the perspective of the National Health System. The alternatives compared were the treatment with lenalidomide against maintenance without treatment (MwT). Efficiency measures used were years of life gained (YGs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). According to the CALGB 100104 trial data, the average health costs of patients who were treated with lenalidomide for 120 months was €836,534.31 and without treatment was €528,963.63. The effectiveness of the lenalidomide group was 7.59YGs (5.72 QALY) against 6.58 of MwT (4.61 QALY). The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was €277,456.72/QALY and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €303,191.05/YGs. From the analysis, the IFM2005-02 trial obtained 5.13 QALY in the lenalidomide group against the 4.98 QALY in the MwT group, with an ICUR of €1,502,780.55/QALY. In terms of budgetary impact, a range between 799 and 1452 patients susceptible to receive treatment with lenalidomide was assumed in Spain. In conclusion, the results show a high ICUR and budgetary impact, which adds uncertainty about the maximum prudent duration of the treatment.

Coste-efectividad e impacto presupuestario del tratamiento con evolocumab frente a estatinas y ezetimiba para la hipercolesterolemia en España / Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of treatment with evolocumab versus statins and ezetimibe for hypercholesterolemia in Spain

Introducción y objetivos: Analizar la razón de coste-efectividad y el impacto presupuestario del tratamiento con evolocumab (inhibidor de la PCSK9) para pacientes en prevención secundaria en el Sistema Nacional de Salud español. Métodos: Se realizaron, desde la perspectiva del sistema sanitario público, análisis de impacto presupuestario, modelos de árbol de decisión y Markov, basándose en el único ensayo clínico con datos de morbimortalidad (FOURIER). Las alternativas comparadas fueron evolocumab frente a estatinas y un 5% ezetimiba conjuntamente. La medida de eficacia utilizada fue el número de eventos cardiovasculares evitados. Se realizaron análisis de sensibilidad univariable y probabilístico. Resultados: El coste sanitario promedio de los pacientes tratados a 26 meses con evolocumab fue de 11.134,78 euros y de 393,83 euros con el estándar (estatinas + ezetimiba). El coste-efectividad incremental superó los 600.000 euros por evento cardiovascular evitado en las 2 variables (primera: muerte cardiovascular, infarto de miocardio, accidente cerebrovascular, hospitalización por angina inestable o revascularización coronaria; segunda: incluye los 3 primeros eventos). A 10 años, el modelo de Markov mostró un coste promedio de 471.417,37 frente a 13.948,45 euros con evolocumab y estándar respectivamente. El tratamiento con evolocumab en hipercolesterolemia familiar supondría anualmente entre 3 y 6,1 millones de euros, lo que supone una diferencia de 2,5-5,1 millones de euros con el tratamiento estándar (2017). Para el año 2021, en hipercolesterolemia no familiar (prevención secundaria), la diferencia osciló entre 204,3 y 1.364,7 millones de euros. Conclusiones: El evolocumab se asocia con menor frecuencia de eventos cardiovasculares, pero resulta ineficiente para los pacientes susceptibles de recibirlo en el Sistema Nacional de Salud

Introduction and objectives: To analyze the cost-effectiveness ratio and budget impact of treatment with evolocumab (PCSK9 inhibitor) for patients in secondary prevention in the Spanish National Health System. Methods: A budget impact analysis, decision tree and Markov models were designed under the public health system perspective, based on the only study with morbidity and mortality data (FOURIER). The alternatives compared were evolocumab vs statins, and dual therapy with ezetimibe in 5% of the population. The measure of effectiveness used was the number of cardiovascular events avoided. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: The average annual cost of patients receiving evolocumab was 11 134.78€ and 393.83€ for standard treatment (statins plus ezetimibe). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was > 600 000 € per avoided cardiovascular event for both assessed outcomes (first: cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and hospitalization due to unstable angina or coronary revascularization; second: includes the first 3 events). To perform the 10-year Markov model, the average cost of standard treatment was 13 948.45€ vs 471 417.37€ with evolocumab. Treatment with evolocumab for patients with familial hypercholesterolemia would cost between 3 and 6.1 million euros, assuming a difference of 2.5 and 5.1 million euros with the standard treatment (2017). This difference would be between 204.3 and 1364.7 million euros (2021) for those with nonfamiliar hypercholesterolemia (secondary prevention). Conclusions: Treatment with evolocumab is associated with a lower frequency of cardiovascular events, but is inefficient for patients suitable to receive this drug in the Spanish National Health System

Coste-efectividad del evolocumab. Respuesta / Cost-effectiveness of evolocumab. Response

No disponible

Cost-effectiveness and Budget Impact of Treatment with Evolocumab Versus Statins and Ezetimibe for Hypercholesterolemia in Spain.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: To analyze the cost-effectiveness ratio and budget impact of treatment with evolocumab (PCSK9 inhibitor) for patients in secondary prevention in the Spanish National Health System. METHODS: A budget impact analysis, decision tree and Markov models were designed under the public health system perspective, based on the only study with morbidity and mortality data (FOURIER). The alternatives compared were evolocumab vs statins, and dual therapy with ezetimibe in 5% of the population. The measure of effectiveness used was the number of cardiovascular events avoided. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The average annual cost of patients receiving evolocumab was 11 134.78€ and 393.83€ for standard treatment (statins plus ezetimibe). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was > 600 000 € per avoided cardiovascular event for both assessed outcomes (first: cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and hospitalization due to unstable angina or coronary revascularization; second: includes the first 3 events). To perform the 10-year Markov model, the average cost of standard treatment was 13 948.45€ vs 471 417.37€ with evolocumab. Treatment with evolocumab for patients with familial hypercholesterolemia would cost between 3 and 6.1 million euros, assuming a difference of 2.5 and 5.1 million euros with the standard treatment (2017). This difference would be between 204.3 and 1364.7 million euros (2021) for those with nonfamiliar hypercholesterolemia (secondary prevention). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with evolocumab is associated with a lower frequency of cardiovascular events, but is inefficient for patients suitable to receive this drug in the Spanish National Health System.