Systematic review on quality control for drug management programs: Is quality reported in the literature?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Maintaining quality of care while managing limited healthcare resources is an ongoing challenge in healthcare. The objective of this study was to evaluate how the impact of drug management programs is reported in the literature and to identify potentially existing quality standards.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This analysis relates to the published research on the impact of drug management on economic, clinical, or humanistic outcomes in managed care, indemnity insurance, VA, or Medicaid in the USA published between 1996 and 2007. Included articles were systematically analyzed for study objective, study endpoints, and drug management type. They were further categorized by drug management tool, primary objective, and study endpoints.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>None of the 76 included publications assessed the overall quality of drug management tools. The impact of 9 different drug management tools used alone or in combination was studied in pharmacy claims, medical claims, electronic medical records or survey data from either patient, plan or provider perspective using an average of 2.1 of 11 possible endpoints. A total of 68% of the studies reported the impact on plan focused endpoints, while the clinical, the patient or the provider perspective were studied to a much lower degree (45%, 42% and 12% of the studies). Health outcomes were only accounted for in 9.2% of the studies.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Comprehensive assessment of quality considering plan, patient and clinical outcomes is not yet applied. There is no defined quality standard. Benchmarks including health outcomes should be determined and used to improve the overall clinical and economic effectiveness of drug management programs.</p

Treatment patterns associated with Duloxetine and Venlafaxine use for Major Depressive Disorder

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Duloxetine and venlafaxine extended release (venlafaxine XR) are SNRIs indicated for the treatment of MDD. This study addresses whether duloxetine and venlafaxine XR are interchangeable in their patterns of use with patients who are depressed or are used more selectively based on treatment history, background characteristics, and presenting symptoms.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This was a retrospective analysis of an administrative insurance claims database. We studied patients in managed care with major depressive disorder (MDD) treated with duloxetine or venlafaxine XR. Predictors of treatment and cost were assessed using Chi-square and logistic regression analyses of demographics and past-year medication use and comorbidities.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Patients with MDD treated with duloxetine (n = 9,641) versus venlafaxine XR (n = 8,514) tended to be older, slightly more likely to be female, and treated by a psychiatrist (<it>P </it>< 0.0001). In the prior year, more duloxetine patients (vs. venlafaxine XR) received ≥3 unique antidepressants (20.8% vs. 16.6%), ≥3 unique pain medications (25.5% vs. 15.6%), and had ≥8 unique diagnosed comorbid medical and psychiatric conditions (38.6% vs. 29.1%). The prior 6-month total health care costs were $1,731 higher for duloxetine than for venlafaxine XR and declined for both medications in the 6 months after treatment began. Logistic regression analysis revealed that 61% of duloxetine patients and 61% of venlafaxine XR patients were predictable from prior patient and treatment factors.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Patients with MDD treated with duloxetine tended to have a more complex and costly antecedent clinical presentation compared with venlafaxine XR patients, suggesting that physicians do not use the medications interchangeably.</p

Effect of Information and Telephone-Guided Access to Community Support for People with Chronic Kidney Disease: Randomised Controlled Trial

Background: Implementation of self-management support in traditional primary care settings has proved difficult, encouraging the development of alternative models which actively link to community resources. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a common condition usually diagnosed in the presence of other co-morbidities. This trial aimed to determine the effectiveness of an intervention to provide information and telephone-guided access to community support versus usual care for patients with stage 3 CKD. Methods and Findings: In a pragmatic, two-arm, patient level randomised controlled trial 436 patients with a diagnosis of stage 3 CKD were recruited from 24 general practices in Greater Manchester. Patients were randomised to intervention (215) or usual care (221). Primary outcome measures were health related quality of life (EQ-5D health questionnaire), blood pressure control, and positive and active engagement in life (heiQ) at 6 months. At 6 months, mean health related quality of life was significantly higher for the intervention group (adjusted mean difference = 0.05; 95% CI = 0.01, 0.08) and blood pressure was controlled for a significantly greater proportion of patients in the intervention group (adjusted odds ratio = 1.85; 95% CI = 1.25, 2.72). Patients did not differ significantly in positive and active engagement in life. The intervention group reported a reduction in costs compared with control. Conclusions: An intervention to provide tailored information and telephone-guided access to community resources was associated with modest but significant improvements in health related quality of life and better maintenance of blood pressure control for patients with stage 3 CKD compared with usual care. However, further research is required to identify the mechanisms of action of the intervention