Cargando…

A systematic review of observational studies evaluating costs of adverse drug reactions

INTRODUCTION: The growing evidence of the increased frequency and severity of adverse drug events (ADEs), besides the negative impact on patient’s health status, indicates that costs due to ADEs may be steadily rising. Observational studies are an important tool in pharmacovigilance. Despite these s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Batel Marques, Francisco, Penedones, Ana, Mendes, Diogo, Alves, Carlos
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5003513/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27601925
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S115689
_version_ 1782450662474252288
author Batel Marques, Francisco
Penedones, Ana
Mendes, Diogo
Alves, Carlos
author_facet Batel Marques, Francisco
Penedones, Ana
Mendes, Diogo
Alves, Carlos
author_sort Batel Marques, Francisco
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: The growing evidence of the increased frequency and severity of adverse drug events (ADEs), besides the negative impact on patient’s health status, indicates that costs due to ADEs may be steadily rising. Observational studies are an important tool in pharmacovigilance. Despite these studies being more susceptible to bias than experimental designs, they are more competent in assessing ADEs and their associated costs. OBJECTIVE: To identify and characterize the best available evidence on ADE-associated costs. METHODS: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched from 1995 to 2015. Observational studies were included. The methodological quality of selected studies was assessed by Cochrane Collaboration tool for experimental and observational studies. Studies were classified according to the setting analyzed in “ambulatory”, “hospital”, or both. Costs were classified as “direct” and “indirect”. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The total incremental cost per patient with ADE was estimated. RESULTS: Twenty-nine (94%) longitudinal observational studies and two (7%) cross-sectional studies were included. Twenty-three (74%) studies were assessed with the highest methodological quality score. The studies were mainly conducted in the US (61%). Twenty (65%) studies evaluated any therapeutic group. Twenty (65%) studies estimated costs of ADEs leading to or prolonging hospitalization. The “direct costs” were evaluated in all studies, whereas only two (7%) also estimated the “indirect costs”. The “direct costs” in ambulatory ranged from €702.21 to €40,273.08, and the in hospital from €943.40 to €7,192.36. DISCUSSION: Methodological heterogeneities were identified among the included studies, such as design, type of ADEs, suspected drugs, and type and structure of costs. Despite such discrepancies, the financial burden associated with ADE costs was found to be high. In the light of the present findings, validated methods to measure ADE-associated costs need future research efforts.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5003513
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50035132016-09-06 A systematic review of observational studies evaluating costs of adverse drug reactions Batel Marques, Francisco Penedones, Ana Mendes, Diogo Alves, Carlos Clinicoecon Outcomes Res Review INTRODUCTION: The growing evidence of the increased frequency and severity of adverse drug events (ADEs), besides the negative impact on patient’s health status, indicates that costs due to ADEs may be steadily rising. Observational studies are an important tool in pharmacovigilance. Despite these studies being more susceptible to bias than experimental designs, they are more competent in assessing ADEs and their associated costs. OBJECTIVE: To identify and characterize the best available evidence on ADE-associated costs. METHODS: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched from 1995 to 2015. Observational studies were included. The methodological quality of selected studies was assessed by Cochrane Collaboration tool for experimental and observational studies. Studies were classified according to the setting analyzed in “ambulatory”, “hospital”, or both. Costs were classified as “direct” and “indirect”. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The total incremental cost per patient with ADE was estimated. RESULTS: Twenty-nine (94%) longitudinal observational studies and two (7%) cross-sectional studies were included. Twenty-three (74%) studies were assessed with the highest methodological quality score. The studies were mainly conducted in the US (61%). Twenty (65%) studies evaluated any therapeutic group. Twenty (65%) studies estimated costs of ADEs leading to or prolonging hospitalization. The “direct costs” were evaluated in all studies, whereas only two (7%) also estimated the “indirect costs”. The “direct costs” in ambulatory ranged from €702.21 to €40,273.08, and the in hospital from €943.40 to €7,192.36. DISCUSSION: Methodological heterogeneities were identified among the included studies, such as design, type of ADEs, suspected drugs, and type and structure of costs. Despite such discrepancies, the financial burden associated with ADE costs was found to be high. In the light of the present findings, validated methods to measure ADE-associated costs need future research efforts. Dove Medical Press 2016-08-24 /pmc/articles/PMC5003513/ /pubmed/27601925 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S115689 Text en © 2016 Batel Marques et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.
spellingShingle Review
Batel Marques, Francisco
Penedones, Ana
Mendes, Diogo
Alves, Carlos
A systematic review of observational studies evaluating costs of adverse drug reactions
title A systematic review of observational studies evaluating costs of adverse drug reactions
title_full A systematic review of observational studies evaluating costs of adverse drug reactions
title_fullStr A systematic review of observational studies evaluating costs of adverse drug reactions
title_full_unstemmed A systematic review of observational studies evaluating costs of adverse drug reactions
title_short A systematic review of observational studies evaluating costs of adverse drug reactions
title_sort systematic review of observational studies evaluating costs of adverse drug reactions
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5003513/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27601925
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S115689
work_keys_str_mv AT batelmarquesfrancisco asystematicreviewofobservationalstudiesevaluatingcostsofadversedrugreactions
AT penedonesana asystematicreviewofobservationalstudiesevaluatingcostsofadversedrugreactions
AT mendesdiogo asystematicreviewofobservationalstudiesevaluatingcostsofadversedrugreactions
AT alvescarlos asystematicreviewofobservationalstudiesevaluatingcostsofadversedrugreactions
AT batelmarquesfrancisco systematicreviewofobservationalstudiesevaluatingcostsofadversedrugreactions
AT penedonesana systematicreviewofobservationalstudiesevaluatingcostsofadversedrugreactions
AT mendesdiogo systematicreviewofobservationalstudiesevaluatingcostsofadversedrugreactions
AT alvescarlos systematicreviewofobservationalstudiesevaluatingcostsofadversedrugreactions