Gammie Todd, Vogler Sabine, Babar Zaheer-Ud-Din
1 University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
2 WHO Collaborating Centre for Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement Policies, Vienna, Austria.
Ann Pharmacother. 2017 Jan;51(1):54-65. doi: 10.1177/1060028016667741. Epub 2016 Oct 1.
To review the international body of literature from 2010 to 2015 concerning methods of economic evaluations used in hospital- and community-based studies of pharmacy services in publicly funded health systems worldwide, their clinical outcomes, and economic effectiveness.
The literature search was undertaken between May 2, 2015, and September 4, 2015. Keywords included "health economics" and "evaluation" "assessment" or "appraisal," "methods," "hospital" or "community" or "residential care," "pharmacy" or "pharmacy services" and "cost minimisation analysis" or "cost utility analysis" or "cost effectiveness analysis" or "cost benefit analysis." The databases searched included MEDLINE, PubMed, Google Scholar, Science Direct, Springer Links, and Scopus, and journals searched included PLoS One, PLoS Medicine, Nature, Health Policy, Pharmacoeconomics, The European Journal of Health Economics, Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, and Journal of Health Economics.
Studies were selected on the basis of study inclusion criteria. These criteria included full-text original research articles undertaking an economic evaluation of hospital- or community-based pharmacy services in peer-reviewed scientific journals and in English, in countries with a publicly funded health system published between 2010 and 2015.
14 articles were included in this review. Cost-utility analysis (CUA) was the most utilized measure. Cost-minimization analysis (CMA) was not used by any studies. The limited use of cost-benefit analyses (CBAs) is likely a result of technical challenges in quantifying the cost of clinical benefits, risks, and outcomes. Hospital pharmacy services provided clinical benefits including improvements in patient health outcomes and reductions in adverse medication use, and all studies were considered cost-effective due to meeting a cost-utility (per quality-adjusted life year) threshold or were cost saving. Community pharmacy services were considered cost-effective in 8 of 10 studies.
Economic evaluations of hospital and community pharmacy services are becoming increasingly commonplace to enable an understanding of which health care services provide value for money and to inform policy makers as to which services will be cost-effective in light of limited health care resources.
回顾2010年至2015年的国际文献,内容涉及全球公共资助卫生系统中基于医院和社区的药学服务经济评估方法、其临床结果及经济有效性。
文献检索于2015年5月2日至9月4日进行。关键词包括“卫生经济学”及“评估”“评价”或“评估”、“方法”、“医院”或“社区”或“机构护理”、“药房”或“药学服务”以及“成本最小化分析”或“成本效用分析”或“成本效果分析”或“成本效益分析”。检索的数据库包括MEDLINE、PubMed、谷歌学术、科学Direct、Springer Links和Scopus,检索的期刊包括《公共科学图书馆·综合》《公共科学图书馆·医学》《自然》《卫生政策》《药物经济学》《欧洲卫生经济学期刊》《药物经济学与结果研究专家评论》以及《卫生经济学期刊》。
根据研究纳入标准选择研究。这些标准包括在同行评审的科学期刊上以英文发表的、对2010年至2015年期间有公共资助卫生系统国家中基于医院或社区的药学服务进行经济评估的全文原始研究文章。
本综述纳入了14篇文章。成本效用分析(CUA)是使用最多的方法。成本最小化分析(CMA)未被任何研究所用。成本效益分析(CBA)使用有限可能是由于在量化临床效益、风险和结果的成本方面存在技术挑战。医院药学服务提供了临床效益,包括改善患者健康结果和减少药物不良事件的发生,并且由于达到成本效用(每质量调整生命年)阈值或节省成本,所有研究均被认为具有成本效益。在10项研究中的8项中,社区药学服务被认为具有成本效益。
医院和社区药学服务的经济评估正变得越来越普遍,以便了解哪些医疗服务物有所值,并向政策制定者提供信息,说明鉴于医疗资源有限,哪些服务将具有成本效益。