PLoS ONE (Jan 2022)

Cost-effectiveness of a structured medication review approach for multimorbid older adults: Within-trial analysis of the OPERAM study.

  • Paola Salari,
  • Cian O'Mahony,
  • Séverine Henrard,
  • Paco Welsing,
  • Arjun Bhadhuri,
  • Nadine Schur,
  • Marie Roumet,
  • Shanthi Beglinger,
  • Thomas Beck,
  • Katharina Tabea Jungo,
  • Stephen Byrne,
  • Stefanie Hossmann,
  • Wilma Knol,
  • Denis O'Mahony,
  • Anne Spinewine,
  • Nicolas Rodondi,
  • Matthias Schwenkglenks

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265507
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 17, no. 4
p. e0265507

Abstract

Read online

BackgroundInappropriate polypharmacy has been linked with adverse outcomes in older, multimorbid adults. OPERAM is a European cluster-randomized trial aimed at testing the effect of a structured pharmacotherapy optimization intervention on preventable drug-related hospital admissions in multimorbid adults with polypharmacy aged 70 years or older. Clinical results of the trial showed a pattern of reduced drug-related hospital admissions, but without statistical significance. In this study we assessed the cost-effectiveness of the pharmacotherapy optimisation intervention.MethodsWe performed a pre-planned within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of the OPERAM intervention, from a healthcare system perspective. All data were collected within the trial apart from unit costs. QALYs were computed by applying the crosswalk German valuation algorithm to EQ-5D-5L-based quality of life data. Considering the clustered structure of the data and between-country heterogeneity, we applied Generalized Structural Equation Models (GSEMs) on a multiple imputed sample to estimate costs and QALYs. We also performed analyses by country and subgroup analyses by patient and morbidity characteristics.ResultsTrial-wide, the intervention was numerically dominant, with a potential cost-saving of CHF 3'588 (95% confidence interval (CI): -7'716; 540) and gain of 0.025 QALYs (CI: -0.002; 0.052) per patient. Robustness analyses confirmed the validity of the GSEM model. Subgroup analyses suggested stronger effects in people at higher risk.ConclusionWe observed a pattern towards dominance, potentially resulting from an accumulation of multiple small positive intervention effects. Our methodological approaches may inform other CEAs of multi-country, cluster-randomized trials facing presence of missing values and heterogeneity between centres/countries.