OBJECTIVE: Community-based pharmacists are an important stakeholder in providing continuing care for chronic multi-morbid patients, and their role is steadily expanding. The aim of this study is to examine the literature exploring community-based pharmacist-initiated and/or -led deprescribing and to evaluate the impact on the success of deprescribing and clinical outcomes.
METHODS: Library and clinical trials databases were searched from inception to March 2020. Studies were included if they explored deprescribing in adults, by community-based pharmacists and were available in English. Two reviewers extracted data independently using a pre-agreed data extraction template. Meta-analysis was not performed due to heterogeneity of study designs, types of intervention and outcomes.
RESULTS: A total of 24 studies were included in the review. Results were grouped based on intervention method into four categories: educational interventions; interventions involving medication review, consultation or therapy management; pre-defined pharmacist-led deprescribing interventions; and pharmacist-led collaborative interventions. All types of interventions resulted in greater discontinuation of medications in comparison to usual care. Educational interventions reported financial benefits as well. Medication review by community-based pharmacist can lead to successful deprescribing of high-risk medication, but do not affect the risk or rate of falls, rate of hospitalisations, mortality or quality of life. Pharmacist-led medication review, in patients with mental illness, resulting in deprescribing improves anticholinergic side effects, memory and quality of life. Pre-defined pharmacist-led deprescribing did not reduce healthcare resource consumptions but can contribute to financial savings. Short follow-up periods prevent evaluation of long-term sustainability of deprescribing interventions.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review suggests community-based pharmacists can lead deprescribing interventions and that they are valuable partners in deprescribing collaborations, providing necessary monitoring throughout tapering and post-follow-up to ensure the success of an intervention.

Health economic evaluations (HEE) are increasingly having an impact on policymakers, although the results greatly depend on the quality of the methodology used and on transparent reporting. The two main objectives of this study were to evaluate the quality of cost analyses of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and to assess the comprehensiveness and relevance of cost criteria defined in three validated quality-assessment instruments.
The selection of articles was based on a previous systematic literature review of EBRT-costing studies retrieved from January 2004 to January 2015 (Period 1) in MEDLINE, Embase, and NHS-EED databases and completed in a second time period from January 2015 to November 2018 (Period 2). Three validated instruments to assess the methodology quality with the CHEC and the QHES, and the methodology with the CHEERS checklists were used. The quality was evaluated by both quantitative and qualitative analyses. The scoring robustness was examined with the Kendall coefficient of concordance and inter-class correlation coefficients.
In total, twenty-three articles were selected. The main geographic areas of cost analyses were Canada (n = 5), France (n = 4), and the USA (n = 4). The most commonly studied pathologies and technologies were prostate (n = 7) and head and neck cancer (n = 5) and IMRT (n = 8) and IGRT (n = 2), respectively. The mean instrument scores demonstrated a fair degree of methodological quality, with 69.7% for the CHEC, 73.6% for the QHES, as well as for the reporting quality, with 59.4% for CHEERS for Period 1 (74.4%, 71.5%, and 66.1%, respectively, for Period 2). An additional qualitative analysis per criterion revealed that certain items, essential for understanding the costing methodology and the results (e.g., the time horizon, discount rate, sensitivity analysis) were often only partially completed. Statistical analysis confirmed that the reviewers\' scoring was consistent. The instruments identified the same top three articles, albeit with a degree of variation in the ranking.
Qualitative and quantitative assessment of cost analyses in EBRT exhibits a fair level of study quality in terms of the methodology and reporting transparency. The impact of cost calculations on the final HEE result appears to be underestimated, and increased transparency of the data sources and the methodologies is needed.

BACKGROUND: The intensive care unit (ICU) consumes 20% of hospital expenditures and 1% of gross domestic product. Many strategies have been attempted to reduce ICU costs. A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the effect of palliative care (PC) consultations in the ICU on length of stay (LOS) and costs.
METHODS: A literature search was performed using PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective, and retrospective cohort studies looking at PC consultations in adult ICUs published between January 2000 and February 2016 were selected. Independent reviewers assessed the eligibility of studies, extracted data on ICU, hospital LOS, and mortality, and rated each study\'s quality. The cost was derived from an existing model in the literature; the primary outcome was ICU LOS and the secondary outcomes were direct variable costs, mortality, and hospital LOS.
RESULTS: We reviewed 814 abstracts, but only 8 studies met inclusion criteria and were included. The patients with a PC consultation in the ICU, when compared to those who did not, showed a trend toward reduced LOS. This reduction was statistically significant in the higher quality studies. Mortality was similar in both groups. Palliative care consultations also lead to a reduction in costs in 5 of the 8 eligible trials. On average, ICU costs were USD7533 and USD6406 (control vs PC, P < .05) and hospital direct variable costs were USD9518 and USD8971 ( P < .05) per admission. Due to interstudy heterogeneity, all outcomes were described narratively.
CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrates a trend that PC consultations reduce LOS and costs without impacting mortality. However, due to the small sample sizes and varying degrees of quality of evidence, many questions remain. A large multicenter RCT and formal economic evaluation would be needed for more definitive results.

BACKGROUND: Gonadotropins are protein hormones which are central to the complex endocrine system that regulates normal growth, sexual development, and reproductive function. There is still a lively debate on which type of gonadotropin medication should be used, either human menopausal gonadotropin or recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone. The objective of the study was to perform a systematic review of the recent literature to compare recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone to human menopausal gonadotropin with the aim to assess any differences in terms of efficacy and to provide a cost evaluation based on findings of this systematic review.
METHODS: The review was conducted selecting prospective, randomized, controlled trials comparing the two gonadotropin medications from a literature search of several databases. The outcome measure used to evaluate efficacy was the number of oocytes retrieved per cycle. In addition, a cost evaluation was performed based on retrieved efficacy data.
RESULTS: The number of oocytes retrieved appeared to be higher for human menopausal gonadotropin in only 2 studies while 10 out of 13 studies showed a higher mean number of oocytes retrieved per cycle for recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone. The results of the cost evaluation provided a similar cost per oocyte for both hormones.
CONCLUSIONS: Recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone treatment resulted in a higher oocytes yield per cycle than human menopausal gonadotropin at similar cost per oocyte.