BackgroundCommunity pharmacies are major contributors to health care systems across the world. Several studies have been conducted to evaluate community pharmacies services in health care. The purpose of this study was to estimate the social and economic benefits of current and potential future community pharmacies services provided by pharmacists in health care in Portugal.MethodsThe social and economic value of community pharmacies services was estimated through a decision-model. Model inputs included effectiveness data, quality of life (QoL) and health resource consumption, obtained though literature review and adapted to Portuguese reality by an expert panel. The estimated economic value was the result of non-remunerated pharmaceutical services plus health resource consumption potentially avoided. Social and economic value of community pharmacies services derives from the comparison of two scenarios: “with service” versus “without service”.ResultsIt is estimated that current community pharmacies services in Portugal provide a gain in QoL of 8.3% and an economic value of 879.6 million euros (M€), including 342.1 M€ in non-remunerated pharmaceutical services and 448.1 M€ in avoided expense with health resource consumption. Potential future community pharmacies services may provide an additional increase of 6.9% in QoL and be associated with an economic value of 144.8 M€: 120.3 M€ in non-remunerated services and 24.5 M€ in potential savings with health resource consumption.ConclusionsCommunity pharmacies services provide considerable benefit in QoL and economic value. An increase range of services including a greater integration in primary and secondary care, among other transversal services, may add further social and economic value to the society.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2525-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objectives: This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril in patients with symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods: We used a previously developed Markov model calibrated with patient-level data from the PARADIGM-HF trial, adapted to the Portuguese setting. The model considers two health states (alive or dead) and uses regression analyzes to estimate hospitalizations and deaths over time. A panel of experts estimated resource consumption in the outpatient setting. To estimate resource consumption with hospitalizations, the National Health Service Diagnosis Related Groups database was used. Unit costs were based on national legislation, and on the Infomed database. The model considers a societal perspective, a time horizon of 30-years, and a 5% annual discount rate. Sensitivity analyses assessed the robustness of results. Results: Sacubitril/valsartan increases life expectancy by 0.5 life-years, corresponding to 0.4 incremental quality adjusted life-years (QALY) versus enalapril. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is 22,702€/QALY. Sensitivity analysis shows that results are robust, but sensitive to the parameter estimates of the cardiovascular survival curve. Conclusion: Sacubitril/valsartan is a cost-effective therapeutic option in the treatment of Portuguese patients with HFrEF and translate into significant health gains and increased life expectancy versus the current standard of care.

The rising prevalence of cardiovascular (CV) risk factors in Portugal has translated into more than 35,000 annual deaths due to CV diseases. We performed a multicenter observational cohort study encompassing clinical activities performed between 2000 and 2019 to characterize the CV risk profile and LDL-C management of patients in every CV risk category using electronic health records of a regional population in Portugal. We analyzed data from 14 health centers and 1 central hospital in the north of Portugal of patients between 40 and 80 years that had at least 1 family medicine appointment at these institutions. Living patients were characterized on 31 December 2019. CV risk assessment was computed according to the 2019 ESC/EAS Guidelines. Lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) and achievement of LDL-C targets were assessed. In total, the analysis included 78,459 patients. Patient proportions were 33%, 29%, 22%, and 17% for low, intermediate, high, and very high CV risk, respectively. Moderate-intensity statins were the most frequently used medication across all CV risk categories. High-intensity statins were used in 5% and 10% of high and very high CV risk patients, respectively. Ezetimibe was used in 6% and 10% of high and very high CV risk patients, respectively. LDL-C targets were achieved in 44%, 27%, 7%, and 3% of low, intermediate, high, and very high CV risk patients, respectively. For uncontrolled patients in the high and very high CV risk categories, a median LDL-C reduction of 44% and 53%, respectively, would be required to meet LDL-C targets. There are clear opportunities to optimize LDL-C management in routine clinical practice. The prescription of LLT according to CV risk represents an important missed treatment opportunity.

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for patient treated at F2F3 ranged from 3 000 € / QALY to 20 000 € / QALY for 8 and 12 weeks treatment duration. The sensitivity analyses carried out confirmed the robustness of this result. ConClusions: Sofosbuvir-ledipasvir association is a cost-effective treatment option for patients with hepatitis C in most clinical contexts.

No abstract