Pharmacist prescribing and care improves cardiovascular risk, but is it cost-effective? A cost-effectiveness analysis of the RxEACH study

Background: The R(x)EACH randomized trial demonstrated that community pharmacist prescribing and care reduced the risk for cardiovascular (CV) events by 21% compared to usual care. Objective: To evaluate the economic impact of pharmacist prescribing and care for CV risk reduction in a Canadian setting. Methods: A Markov cost-effectiveness model was developed to extrapolate potential differences in long-term CV outcomes, using different risk assessment equations. The mean change in CV risk for the 2 groups of R(x)EACH was extrapolated over 30 years, with costs and health outcomes discounted at 1.5% per year. The model incorporated health outcomes, costs and quality of life to estimate overall cost-effectiveness. It was assumed that the intervention would be 50% effective after 10 years. Individual-level results were scaled up to population level based on published statistics (29.2% of Canadian adults are at high risk for CV events). Costs considered included direct medical costs as well as the costs associated with implementing the pharmacist intervention. Uncertainty was explored via probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results: It is estimated that the Canadian health care system would save more than $4.4 billion over 30 years if the pharmacist intervention were delivered to 15% of the eligible population. Pharmacist care would be associated with a gain of 576,689 quality-adjusted life years and avoid more than 8.9 million CV events. The intervention is economically dominant (i.e., it is both more effective and reduces costs when compared to usual care). Conclusion: Across a range of 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses of key parameters and assumptions, pharmacist prescribing and care are both more effective and cost-saving compared to usual care. Canadians need and deserve such care.