The effectiveness and cost of integrating pharmacists within general practice to optimize prescribing and health outcomes in primary care patients with polypharmacy: A systematic review

Aisling Croke; Karen Cardwell; Barbara Clyne; Frank Moriarty; Laura McCullagh; Susan M. Smith

doi:10.1101/2022.12.15.22283519

Abstract

Background Polypharmacy and associated potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) place a considerable burden on patients and represent a challenge for general practitioners (GPs). Integration of pharmacists within general practice (herein ‘pharmacist integration’) may improve medications management and patient outcomes. This systematic review assessed the effectiveness and costs of pharmacist integration.

Methods A systematic search of ten databases from inception to January 2021 was conducted. Studies that evaluated the effectiveness or cost of pharmacist integration were included. Eligible interventions were those that targeted medications optimization compared to usual GP care without pharmacist integration (herein ‘usual care’). Primary outcomes were PIP (as measured by PIP screening tools) and number of prescribed medications. Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life, health service utilization, clinical outcomes, and costs. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, interrupted-time-series, controlled before-after trials and health-economic studies were included.

Screening and risk of bias using Cochrane EPOC criteria were conducted by two reviewers independently. A narrative synthesis and meta-analysis of outcomes where possible, were conducted; the certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

Results In total, 23 studies (28 full text articles) met the inclusion criteria. In ten of 11 studies, pharmacist integration probably reduced PIP in comparison to usual care (moderate certainty evidence). A meta-analysis of number of medications in seven studies reported a mean difference of -0.80 [-1.17, -0.43], which indicated pharmacist integration probably reduced number of medicines (moderate certainty evidence). It was uncertain whether pharmacist integration improved health-related quality of life because the certainty of evidence was very low. Twelve health-economic studies outlined costs and potential cost-effectiveness.

Conclusions Pharmacist integration probably reduced PIP and number of medications however, there was no clear effect on other patient outcomes; and while interventions in a small number of studies appeared to be cost-effective, further robust, well-designed cluster RCTs with economic evaluations are required to determine cost-effectiveness of pharmacist integration within general practice.

PROSPERO Registration CRD42019139679

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Clinical Protocols

https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.12966.2

Funding Statement

This research was funded by the Health Research Board Ireland (Grant reference HRB CDA 2018 Reference CDA-2018-003). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

The datasets supporting the conclusions of this article are available in the Open Science Framework repository, The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of integrating pharmacists within general practice to optimise prescribing and health outcomes in primary care patients with polypharmacy: A systematic review. Extended Data.

https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/RSWJT

List of Abbreviations

(ARR): Absolute risk reduction
(ADEs): Adverse drug events
(ATC): Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical
(BP): Blood pressure
(BMI): Body mass index
(EPOC): Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care
(CI): Confidence intervals
(CHEC): Consensus on Health Economic Criteria
(CPI): Consumer Price Index
(CBA): Controlled before-after trials
(COS): Core Outcome Set
(CEA): Cost-effectiveness analysis
(CUA): Cost-utility analysis
(DBI): Drug Burden Index
(DRPs): Drug related problems
(DUSOI-A): Duke’s Severity of Illness Visual Analogue Scale
(EQ5D): EuroQol-5D
(GPs): General practitioners
(GRADE): Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation
(HBa1C): Haemoglobin A1c
(HR): Hazard ratio
(HTA): Health Technology Assessment
(HRQoL): Health-related quality of life
(INRs): International normalised ratios
(ITS): Interrupted-time-series
(LDL): Low-density lipoprotein
(MeSH): Medical Subject Headings
(MRF): Medication review with follow-up
(MAI): Medications Appropriateness Index
(MRP): Medication-related problem
(MTM): Medications therapeutic management
(MDT): Multi-disciplinary team
(NHS): National Health Service
(NHS EED): NHS Economic Evaluations Database
(nRCTs): Non-randomised controlled trials
(NNT): Number needed to treat
(OECD): Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
(PROMs): Patient reported outcome measures
(PCIs): Pharmaceutical care issues
(PDTP): Potential drug therapy problem
(PIMs): Potentially inappropriate medications
(PIP): Potentially inappropriate prescribing
(PRISMA): Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
(PCT): Primary care trust
(PPP): Purchasing power parity
(QALY): Quality adjusted life year
(RCTs): Randomised controlled trials
(STOPP/START): Screening Tool of Older Person’s Prescriptions / Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment
(SF-36): Short Form 36 Health Survey Questionnaire
(SOF): Summary of findings’
(UK): United Kingdom
(VAS): Visual analogue scale

The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.