BackgroundMedication reconciliation at admission, transfer and discharge has been designated as a required hospital practice to reduce adverse drug events. However, implementation challenges have resulted in poor hospital adherence. The aim of this study was to assess the processes required to carry out medication reconciliation: the health professionals involved, the tasks and time devoted to medication reconciliation in general hospital settings.MethodsA time-and-motion study design was used. Using a systematic sample of patients admitted and discharged from geriatric, medical and surgical units in two academic centers, health professionals involved in medication reconciliation were observed and timed. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the number of professionals involved, tasks performed, and mean time devoted.ResultsUp to 3 professionals from 2 disciplines (medicine and pharmacy) were involved in the medication reconciliation process. Geriatric reconciliations took the most time to complete at admission (mean: 92.2 minutes (SD = 44.3)) and discharge (mean: 29.0 minutes (SD = 23.8)), followed by internal medicine at admission (mean: 46.2 minutes (SD = 21.1)) and 19.4 (SD = 11.7) minutes at discharge) and general surgery minutes at discharge (mean: 9.9 minutes (SD = 18.2)). Considerable differences in order, type and number of tasks performed were noted between and within units. Tasks independent of direct patient interaction took more than twice the time required to complete than tasks requiring patient interaction.ConclusionLack of coordination, specialized training and agreement on the roles and responsibilities of professionals are among the most probable reasons for work-flow inefficiencies, possibly variability in quality, and time required for the current medication reconciliation process. A better understanding of the admission processes in general surgery is required. Standardization and use of electronic tools could improve efficiency and hospital adherence.

No abstract

BackgroundIvabradine is a heart rate–lowering agent approved to reduce the risk of hospitalization for worsening heart failure. This study assessed the cost‐effectiveness of adding ivabradine to background therapy in the United States from the perspective of a commercial or Medicare Advantage payer.Methods and ResultsA cost‐effectiveness, cohort‐based Markov model using a state transition approach tracked a cohort of heart failure patients with heart rate ≥70 beats per minute in sinus rhythm who were treated with ivabradine+background therapy or background therapy alone. Model inputs, including adjusted hazard ratios, rates of hospitalization and mortality, adverse events, and utility‐regression equations, were derived from a large US claims database and SHIFT (Systolic Heart failure treatment with the If inhibitor ivabradine Trial). In the commercial population, ivabradine+background therapy was associated with a cost savings of $8594 versus the cost of background therapy alone over a 10‐year time horizon, primarily because of reduced hospitalization. Ivabradine was associated with an incremental benefit of 0.24 quality‐adjusted life years over a 10‐year time horizon. In the Medicare Advantage population, the incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio for ivabradine was estimated to be $24 920/quality‐adjusted life years.ConclusionsThe cost‐effectiveness model suggests that for a commercial population, the addition of ivabradine to background therapy was associated with cost savings and improved clinical outcomes. For a Medicare Advantage population, the analysis indicates that the clinical benefit of ivabradine can be achieved at a reasonable cost.

No abstract

Aim: To compare daratumumab plus standard-of-care (SoC; bortezomib/thalidomide/dexamethasone [VTd]) and VTd alone with other SoC for transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Patients & methods: We conducted an unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison of progression-free and overall survival (PFS/OS) with D-VTd/VTd versus bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (VRd), bortezomib/cyclophosphamide/dexamethasone (VCd) and bortezomib/dexamethasone (Vd). Results: After matching adjustment, significant improvements in PFS were estimated for D-VTd versus VRd (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.47 [95% CI: 0.33–0.69]), VCd (HR: 0.35 [95% CI: 0.21–0.58]) and Vd (HR: 0.42 [95% CI: 0.28–0.63]). OS was significantly longer with D-VTd versus VRd (HR: 0.31 [95% CI: 0.16–0.57]), VCd (HR: 0.35 [95% CI: 0.14–0.86]) and Vd (HR: 0.38 [95% CI: 0.18–0.77]). No significant PFS/OS differences were seen for VTd versus other SoC. Conclusion: This analysis supports front-line daratumumab for transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.