Cost-effectiveness of point-of-care interventions to tackle inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics in high- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is propagated by widespread inappropriate use of antibiotics. In response, point-of-care interventions (POCIs) have been developed in primary care to preserve antibiotic effectiveness. Many of these POCIs are adopted based on their clinical value. However, assessment of their cost-effectiveness is crucial as well.

OBJECTIVES

To summarize the evidence on cost-effectiveness of POCIs aimed at tackling inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions in primary care in middle- and high-income countries. We also evaluate the quality of the evidence with particular attention to how these economic evaluations faced the challenge of capturing the impact of these POCIs on AMR.

METHODS

Six scientific databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, NHS EED, NHS HTA, the Cochrane Library) were searched for eligible articles published from 1999 to 2022. Their quality was appraised by means of the Drummond and CHEERS checklist.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine articles met the selection criteria. Using their own (implicit) definitions of cost-effectiveness, evidence reported that point-of-care testing, scoring tools, electronic interventions, communication training, and multidimensional and educational interventions are more cost-effective than standard care. In contrast, studies found dipstick testing and audit-and-feedback interventions to be not cost-effective. Data synthesis took a narrative approach as eligible studies were not similar and/or reliable enough to pool their results through meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

More high-quality evidence is needed to attain a thorough understanding of the cost-effectiveness of POCIs. Heterogeneity in terms of interventions and efficiency measures complicates comparing and generalizing results. Methodological recommendations are urgently needed to economically evaluate POCIs, focusing on how AMR should be accounted for.

Cost-effectiveness of check of medication appropriateness: methodological approach

Background Adverse drug events following inappropriate prescribing in the hospital cause a substantial and avoidable medical and economic burden to hospitals, payers and patients alike. A clinical rule-based, pharmacist-led medication-review service, the 'Check of Medication Appropriateness' (CMA) was implemented in the University Hospitals Leuven. The CMA is shown to be effective in reducing potentially inappropriate prescriptions. Aim This study investigated whether this centralised clinical pharmacy service is cost-effective. Method We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of three clinical rules of the CMA, targeting adverse drug events at three levels of severity: A) persistent opioid-induced constipation, B) ketorolac-induced gastrointestinal bleeding and C) drug-induced Torsade de Pointes. A decision tree was developed for each clinical rule. Both intervention costs as well as total costs associated with the occurrence of an adverse drug event were considered. The outcomes were reported in the form of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, expressed as an incremental cost per adverse drug event avoided. Results Applying clinical rules to avoid persistent opioid-induced constipation and ketorolac-induced gastrointestinal bleeding were cost-saving. Implementation of a medication check to avoid drug-induced Torsade de Pointes costed €8,846 per Torsade de Pointes avoided. Conclusion Our study provides strong indications that the CMA is worth its investment for clinical rules targeting (very) common adverse drug events, that can be avoided with limited expenses. Further research is required to assess the full CMA. The proposed model may be useful to perform cost-effectiveness analyses of other centralised clinical pharmacy services targeting inappropriate prescribing, at the level of individual adverse drug events.