Quantifying the cost of single-use minims and multidose bottles for eye drops in routine ophthalmic practice: a multicentre study.


Journal

Canadian journal of ophthalmology. Journal canadien d'ophtalmologie
ISSN: 1715-3360
Titre abrégé: Can J Ophthalmol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0045312

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
10 2022
Historique:
received: 14 04 2021
revised: 02 06 2021
accepted: 06 06 2021
pubmed: 21 7 2021
medline: 21 9 2022
entrez: 20 7 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

To compare costs between two different eye drop delivery modalities: multidose bottles and single-use minims. Retrospective cohort study. Monthly dilating eye drop costs and quantities (tropicamide 1%, phenylephrine 2.5%, cyclopentolate 1%) were studied over a 2-year period between April 2013 and March 2015 at 2 tertiary ophthalmic centres (Royal Alexandra Hospital [RAH, Edmonton] and Rockyview General Hospital [RGH, Calgary]). In April 2014, RAH switched its dilating eye drop practice from predominantly multidose bottles to single-use minims, whereas RGH continued using predominantly multidose bottles. Eye drop volume and total and per-patient eye drop costs were quantified at RAH before switching (pre-intervention) and after (post-intervention) using an interrupted time-series analysis with RGH as a control. A counterfactual analysis was also performed. Significance was obtained using independent t-testing. After switching to single-use minims, RAH experienced changes in the following: an increase in single-use minims as a proportion of total eye drop utilization (from 5.6% to 89.1%; p = 0.001), an increase in total eye drop cost by $2117 per month (95% confidence interval [CI], $1354-$2880; p < 0.001), an increase in per-patient costs by $984 per 1000 patients per month (95% CI, $674-$1293). Contrastingly, RGH did not experience similar changes. Ultimately, the cost of switching to single-use minims was $22 481 (95% CI, $7830-$31 336) over a 12-month period. If safe eye drop practices are enforced via proper protocols, the use of multidose bottles may be a more cost-effective option than single-use minims for routine clinical practice.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34283968
pii: S0008-4182(21)00212-X
doi: 10.1016/j.jcjo.2021.06.005
pii:
doi:

Substances chimiques

Ophthalmic Solutions 0
Phenylephrine 1WS297W6MV
Cyclopentolate I76F4SHP7J
Tropicamide N0A3Z5XTC6

Types de publication

Journal Article Multicenter Study

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

312-318

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2021 Canadian Ophthalmological Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Kahir A Rahemtulla (KA)

Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB. Electronic address: kdamji@ualberta.ca.

Marvi K Cheema (MK)

Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB.

Tony Nickonchuk (T)

Pharmacy, Alberta Health Services, Edmonton, AB.

Micheal Guirguis (M)

Pharmacy, Alberta Health Services, Edmonton, AB.

Yazid N Al Hamarneh (YN)

Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB; EPICORE Centre, Edmonton, AB.

Karim F Damji (KF)

Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH