注意缺陷多动障碍患者的药物治疗模式:基于管理式医疗人群的回顾性理赔数据分析。

Pharmacological treatment patterns among patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: retrospective claims-based analysis of a managed care population.

机构信息

i3 Innovus, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.

出版信息

Curr Med Res Opin. 2010 Apr;26(4):977-89. doi: 10.1185/03007991003673617.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To develop a descriptive profile of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) pharmacological treatment patterns in terms of persistence, adherence, augmentation, switching, and dosing changes; and to assess differences in treatment patterns with regard to ADHD medication type, class, and duration of action.

METHODS

This retrospective claims database analysis used medical data, pharmacy data, and enrollment information to examine treatment patterns among patients with at least one claim with a diagnosis code for ADHD and a filled prescription for ADHD medication (index therapy) during the period 01 January 2004 through 30 September 2006. Treatment persistence and adherence (days supplied/days persistent) were calculated. Dose changes, medication switching, and augmentation were analyzed at three levels of comparison: class (stimulant vs nonstimulant [atomoxetine]), drug type (amphetamine vs methylphenidate), and duration of action (short, intermediate, long). Statistical comparisons were made using the chi-square test for proportions and Student's t-test or the F-test from one-way ANOVA for means.

RESULTS

Of 60,010 patients meeting eligibility criteria, 58.4% were younger than age 18. Most (78.4%) were prescribed a stimulant as their index therapy. Persistence and adherence were greater for patients on stimulants (vs the nonstimulant), for patients on amphetamines (vs methylphenidates), and for patients on long-acting medications (vs short- and intermediate-acting medications; all p < 0.0001). Index drug dose changes were least likely among individuals taking the nonstimulant (vs stimulants), methylphenidates (vs amphetamines), or intermediate-acting drugs (vs short- and long-acting drugs; all p < 0.0001), and medication switches were more frequent among those on nonstimulants, methylphenidates, or short-acting drugs (all p < 0.0001). Subjects taking long-acting medication were less likely to augment with a drug with a different duration of action than those taking intermediate- or short-acting medication (p < 0.0001). This claims-based study is limited by possible discrepancies between claims and patient behaviors (i.e., a claim for a prescription does not necessarily indicate that the medication was taken as prescribed).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients were more stable on treatment compared with their respective comparator groups if their index therapy was a stimulant, long-acting drug, or amphetamine.

摘要

目的

根据持续性、依从性、增效治疗、药物转换和剂量调整,描述注意缺陷多动障碍(ADHD)药物治疗模式的特征;并根据 ADHD 药物类型、类别和作用持续时间评估治疗模式的差异。

方法

本回顾性的索赔数据库分析使用医疗数据、药物数据和入组信息,以评估 2004 年 1 月 1 日至 2006 年 9 月 30 日期间至少有一个 ADHD 诊断编码和 ADHD 药物处方(索引治疗)的索赔患者的治疗模式。计算治疗的持续性和依从性(用药天数/持续用药天数)。以药物类别(兴奋剂与非兴奋剂[托莫西汀])、药物类型(安非他命与哌甲酯)和作用持续时间(短、中、长)三个比较水平分析剂量调整、药物转换和增效治疗。使用卡方检验比较比例,使用学生 t 检验或单因素方差分析的 F 检验比较平均值。

结果

在符合条件的 60010 名患者中,78.4%为兴奋剂,58.4%年龄小于 18 岁。大多数(78.4%)患者接受了兴奋剂作为索引治疗。与非兴奋剂相比,患者使用兴奋剂(vs 非兴奋剂)、使用安非他命(vs 哌甲酯)和使用长效药物(vs 短效和中效药物)的持续性和依从性更高(均 p < 0.0001)。服用非兴奋剂(vs 兴奋剂)、哌甲酯(vs 安非他命)或中效药物(vs 短效和长效药物)的患者改变药物剂量的可能性最低(均 p < 0.0001),服用非兴奋剂、哌甲酯或短效药物的患者药物转换更频繁(均 p < 0.0001)。与使用中效或短效药物的患者相比,服用长效药物的患者不太可能使用不同作用持续时间的药物增效治疗(p < 0.0001)。这项基于索赔的研究受到索赔和患者行为之间可能存在差异的限制(即,处方索赔并不一定表明药物按规定服用)。

结论

如果索引治疗是兴奋剂、长效药物或安非他命,患者的治疗稳定性优于相应的对照组。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索