Suppr超能文献

现患使用者药物依从性研究中的潜在偏倚。

Potential bias in medication adherence studies of prevalent users.

机构信息

Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC 27705, USA.

出版信息

Health Serv Res. 2013 Aug;48(4):1468-86. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12043. Epub 2013 Feb 13.

Abstract

PURPOSE

We examined how the choice of historic medication use criteria for identifying prevalent users may bias estimated adherence changes associated with a medication copayment increase.

METHODS

From pharmacy claims data in a retrospective cohort study, we identified 6,383 prevalent users of oral diabetes medications from four VA Medical Centers. Patients were included in this prevalent cohort if they had one fill both 3 months prior and 4-12 months prior to the index date, defined as the month in which medication copayments increased. To determine whether these historic medication use criteria introduced bias in the estimated response to a $5 medication copayment increase, we compared adherence trends from cohorts defined from different medication use criteria and from different index dates of copayment change. In an attempt to validate the prior observation of an upward trend in adherence prior to the date of the policy change, we replicated time series analyses varying the index dates prior to and following the date of the policy change, hypothesizing that the trend line associated with the policy change would differ from the trend lines that were not.

RESULTS

Medication adherence trends differed when different medication use criteria were applied. Contrary to our expectations, similar adherence trends were observed when the same medication use criteria were applied at index dates when no copayment changes occurred.

CONCLUSION

To avoid introducing bias due to study design in outcomes assessments of medication policy changes, historic medication use inclusion criteria must be chosen carefully when constructing cohorts of prevalent users. Furthermore, while pharmacy data have enormous potential for population research and monitoring, there may be inherent logical flaws that limit cohort identification solely through administrative pharmacy records.

摘要

目的

我们研究了在识别普遍使用者时选择历史用药标准会如何影响与药物共付额增加相关的估计依从性变化。

方法

我们从四家退伍军人事务部医疗中心的回顾性队列研究中的药房索赔数据中确定了 6383 名口服糖尿病药物的现患使用者。如果患者在索引日期(即药物共付额增加的月份)前 3 个月和前 4-12 个月有一次配药,则将其纳入该现患队列。为了确定这些历史用药标准是否会对估计对 5 美元药物共付额增加的反应产生偏差,我们比较了根据不同用药标准和不同共付额变化索引日期定义的队列中的依从性趋势。为了验证在政策变化日期之前依从性呈上升趋势的先验观察,我们复制了时间序列分析,改变了政策变化日期之前和之后的索引日期,假设与政策变化相关的趋势线将与未发生政策变化的趋势线不同。

结果

当应用不同的用药标准时,药物依从性趋势会有所不同。与我们的预期相反,当在没有共付额变化的索引日期应用相同的用药标准时,观察到了相似的依从性趋势。

结论

为了避免在药物政策变化的结果评估中因研究设计而引入偏差,在构建现患使用者队列时,必须谨慎选择历史用药纳入标准。此外,虽然药房数据在人群研究和监测方面具有巨大潜力,但仅通过行政药房记录识别队列可能存在固有逻辑缺陷。

相似文献

1
Potential bias in medication adherence studies of prevalent users.
Health Serv Res. 2013 Aug;48(4):1468-86. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12043. Epub 2013 Feb 13.
2
Does medication adherence following a copayment increase differ by disease burden?
Health Serv Res. 2011 Dec;46(6pt1):1963-85. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2011.01286.x. Epub 2011 Jun 20.
3
4
Effect of copayment policies on initial medication non-adherence according to income: a population-based study.
BMJ Qual Saf. 2018 Nov;27(11):878-891. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007416. Epub 2018 Mar 15.
6
Effect of increased copayments on pharmacy use in the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Med Care. 2007 Nov;45(11):1090-7. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3180ca95be.
7
Does the association between prescription copayment increases and medication adherence differ by race?
J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2013 Aug;24(3):1317-30. doi: 10.1353/hpu.2013.0152.
8
Impact of Medicaid prescription copayments on use of antipsychotics and other medications in patients with schizophrenia.
J Med Econ. 2017 Dec;20(12):1252-1260. doi: 10.1080/13696998.2017.1365720. Epub 2017 Aug 24.
9
Impact of a prescription copayment increase on lipid-lowering medication adherence in veterans.
Circulation. 2009 Jan 27;119(3):390-7. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.783944. Epub 2009 Jan 12.
10
Non-warfarin oral anticoagulant copayments and adherence in atrial fibrillation: A population-based cohort study.
Am Heart J. 2021 Mar;233:109-121. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2020.12.010. Epub 2021 Jan 14.

引用本文的文献

2
Bias in pharmacoepidemiologic studies using secondary health care databases: a scoping review.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Mar 11;19(1):53. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0695-y.
5
Medication adherence among patients with Type 2 diabetes: A mixed methods study.
PLoS One. 2018 Dec 11;13(12):e0207583. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207583. eCollection 2018.
6
Real-World Clinical Effectiveness and Cost Savings of Liraglutide Versus Sitagliptin in Treating Type 2 Diabetes for 1 and 2 Years.
Diabetes Ther. 2018 Jun;9(3):1279-1293. doi: 10.1007/s13300-018-0432-2. Epub 2018 May 9.
7
Adherence to Disease-Modifying Therapies for Multiple Sclerosis.
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2016 Dec;22(12):1394-1401. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2016.22.12.1394.

本文引用的文献

2
Does medication adherence following a copayment increase differ by disease burden?
Health Serv Res. 2011 Dec;46(6pt1):1963-85. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2011.01286.x. Epub 2011 Jun 20.
3
Observational methods in comparative effectiveness research.
Am J Med. 2010 Dec;123(12 Suppl 1):e16-23. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2010.10.004.
4
Copayment reductions generate greater medication adherence in targeted patients.
Health Aff (Millwood). 2010 Nov;29(11):2002-8. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0571.
6
Impact of a prescription copayment increase on lipid-lowering medication adherence in veterans.
Circulation. 2009 Jan 27;119(3):390-7. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.783944. Epub 2009 Jan 12.
9
The effect of the Medicare Part D prescription benefit on drug utilization and expenditures.
Ann Intern Med. 2008 Feb 5;148(3):169-77. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-148-3-200802050-00200. Epub 2008 Jan 7.

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

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验