Koller Daniela, Hua Tammy, Bynum Julie P W
Department of Health Services Management, Munich School of Management, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire.
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016 Aug;64(8):1540-8. doi: 10.1111/jgs.14226. Epub 2016 Jun 24.
To evaluate frequency of use of two anti-dementia drug classes approved for treatment of symptoms, whether populations most likely to benefit are treated, and correlates of treatment initiation.
Nationally representative cohort study.
Fee-for-service Medicare.
Elderly adults with dementia enrolled in Medicare Parts A, B, and D in 2009 (N = 433,559) and a subset with incident dementia (n = 185,449).
Main outcome was any prescription fill for antidementia drugs (cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) or memantine) within 1 year.
Treatment with antidementia drugs occurred in 55.8% of all participants with dementia and 49.3% of those with incident dementia. There was no difference between ChEIs and memantine use according to dementia severity (measured as death within first year or living in residential care vs in a community setting) even though memantine is not indicated in mild disease. In incident cases, initiation of treatment was lower in residential care (relative risk (RR) = 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.81-0.83) and with more comorbidities (RR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.96-0.96). Sixty percent of participants were managed in primary care alone. Seeing a neurologist (RR = 1.07, 95% CI = 1.06-1.09) or psychiatrist (RR = 1.17, 95% CI = 1.16-1.19) was associated with higher likelihood of treatment than seeing a primary care provider alone, and seeing geriatrician was associated with with lower likelihood (RR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.93-0.99). Across the United States, the proportion of newly diagnosed individuals started on antidementia treatment varied from 32% to 66% across hospital referral regions.
Antidementia drugs are used less often in people with late disease, but there is no differentiation in medication choice. Although primary care providers most often prescribe antidementia medication without specialty support, differences in practice between specialties are evident.
评估两类已获批用于治疗症状的抗痴呆药物的使用频率、最可能受益的人群是否得到治疗以及治疗起始的相关因素。
具有全国代表性的队列研究。
按服务收费的医疗保险。
2009年参加医疗保险A、B和D部分的老年痴呆症患者(N = 433,559)以及一部分新发痴呆症患者(n = 185,449)。
主要结局是在1年内是否有任何抗痴呆药物(胆碱酯酶抑制剂(ChEIs)或美金刚)的处方配药。
所有痴呆症患者中有55.8%接受了抗痴呆药物治疗,新发痴呆症患者中有49.3%接受了治疗。尽管美金刚未被批准用于轻度疾病,但根据痴呆症严重程度(以第一年死亡或居住在机构护理与社区环境来衡量),ChEIs和美金刚的使用情况并无差异。在新发病例中,机构护理患者的治疗起始率较低(相对风险(RR)= 0.82,95%置信区间(CI)= 0.81 - 0.83),且合并症较多的患者治疗起始率也较低(RR = 0.96,95% CI = 0.96 - 0.96)。60%的参与者仅由初级保健医生管理。与仅看初级保健医生相比,看神经科医生(RR = 1.07,95% CI = 1.06 - 1.09)或精神科医生(RR = 1.17,95% CI = 1.16 - 1.19)的患者接受治疗的可能性更高,而看老年病医生的患者接受治疗的可能性较低(RR = 0.96,95% CI = 0.93 - 0.99)。在美国各地,新诊断个体开始接受抗痴呆治疗的比例在不同医院转诊区域从32%到66%不等。
晚期疾病患者使用抗痴呆药物的频率较低,但在药物选择上没有差异。尽管初级保健医生最常在没有专科支持的情况下开具抗痴呆药物,但各专科之间的实践差异明显。