Cost‐Effectiveness of Pharmacist‐Led Deprescribing of <scp>NSAIDs</scp> in Community‐Dwelling Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Older adults are often prescribed potentially inappropriate medications associated with adverse health outcomes and increased health services utilization. Developing Pharmacist-led Research to Educate and Sensitize Community Residents to the Inappropriate Prescriptions Burden in the Elderly (D-PRESCRIBE), a pragmatic randomized clinical trial, demonstrated how a community pharmacist-led evidence-based educational intervention successfully empowered community-dwelling older adults and their physicians to reduce chronic use of inappropriate medications. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the D-PRESCRIBE intervention for discontinuing nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis. SETTING: Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling adults aged 65 years and older. MEASUREMENTS: Decision analysis combining decision tree and Markov state transition modeling was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of D-PRESCRIBE (NSAIDs) compared with usual care from a Canadian healthcare system perspective with a time horizon of 1 year. Data from the D-PRESCRIBE trial and published literature were used to calculate effectiveness, utilities, and costs. Reference case and scenario analyses were conducted using probabilistic modeling. Sensitivity analyses assessed the robustness of the reference case model. RESULTS: D-PRESCRIBE (NSAIDs) was less costly (-$1008.61) and more effective (.11 quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) than usual care and was the dominant strategy. At willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50 000 per QALY and $100 000 per QALY, D-PRESCRIBE (NSAIDs) incurred a positive incremental net benefit compared with usual care, suggesting it is cost-effective. Compared with the reference case, scenario analyses gave comparable QALYs with modest variation in cost estimates. CONCLUSION: For community-dwelling older adults, D-PRESCRIBE (NSAIDs) provides greater benefits at lower system costs, making it a compelling strategy to reduce the use and harms associated with chronic NSAID consumption. Our findings support reimbursing community pharmacists' clinical professional services for deprescribing inappropriate NSAIDs in community-dwelling older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:1090-1097, 2020.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".