Background: Clinical pharmacists play a significant role in clinical practice, but their work in the clinical pathway (CP) of acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) remains undefined.
Methods: This prospective study included patients who met the discharge criteria during hospitalization at the department of respiratory medicine of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University from March to December 2017 (no pharmacists involved) and from March 2018 to January 2019 (pharmacists involved). The adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting rate, the average DDD number of antibacterial drugs, the per capita cost of pharmaceutical services, and the benefit-cost ratio (B/C) were analyzed.
Results and Discussion: Eighty participants were enrolled during the traditional period and eighty-five participants during the clinical pharmacist period. The average hospital stays (9.2± 0.4 vs 10.7± 0.6 days, P=0.032), the total cost of hospitalization expenses (¥ 14,058± 826 vs ¥ 18,765± 1434, P=0.004), the total cost of drugs (¥ 5717± 449 vs ¥ 8002± 755, P=0.004), and cost of antimicrobial drugs (¥ 3639± 379 vs ¥ 5636± 641, P=0.007) were all lower in the clinical pharmacist group than in the traditional group. The B/C was 10.38 and 5.05 in the total cost of hospitalization expenses and the total cost of drugs, respectively. The clinical pharmacists’ participation was independently associated with the total cost of hospitalization expenses (β=− 0.201, 95% confidence interval: − 0.390, − 0.055, P=0.010).
What is New and Conclusion: The participation of the clinical pharmacist in implementing an AECOPD CP significantly reduces patients’ hospitalization days, the total cost of hospitalization expenses, and antibiotic use and improves the B/C of AECOPD management. The clinical pharmacists’ participation was independently associated with the total hospitalization expenses.
Keywords: clinical pharmacist, acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, clinical pathway, pharmaceutical services, cost-benefit analysis