Standardization of Hypnotic Agents for Prevention of Falls: A Pharmacoeconomic Study

To reduce the number of falls caused by hypnotic agents, the standardization of insomnia treatment was carried out at Yamaguchi University Hospital from April 2019. There were concerns that medical costs would increase due to the selected medicines―suvorexant and eszopiclone―being more expensive tha...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:YAKUGAKU ZASSHI 2021/07/01, Vol.141(7), pp.971-978
Hauptverfasser: Saisyo, Atsuyuki, Takasago, Miwako, Wakabayashi, Kazuki, Akiyama, Mari, Kouda, Kyoji, Takasaki, Akihisa, Matsunaga, Kazuto, Ishida, Haku, Kitahara, Takashi
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng ; jpn
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:To reduce the number of falls caused by hypnotic agents, the standardization of insomnia treatment was carried out at Yamaguchi University Hospital from April 2019. There were concerns that medical costs would increase due to the selected medicines―suvorexant and eszopiclone―being more expensive than conventional benzodiazepines. In this study, the standardization of insomnia treatment was evaluated by pharmacoeconomics. The costs of the hypnotic agents was considered, as was the cost of examination/treatment following falls. Effectiveness was evaluated as the incidence of falls within 24 hours of taking hypnotic agents. This analysis took the public healthcare payer's perspective. Propensity score matching based on patient background, showed that, per hospitalization the medicine costs of the recommended group increased by 1,020 yen, however, the examination/treatment costs following falls decreased by 487 yen when compared with the non-recommended group. Overall, the recommended group incurred costs of 533 yen more per hospitalization for patients prescribed hypnotic agents compared to the non-recommended group, but the incidence of falls for the recommended group was significantly lower than that in the non-recommended group (1.9% vs. 6.3%; p
ISSN:0031-6903
1347-5231
DOI:10.1248/yakushi.21-00020