Suppr超能文献

药物治疗管理服务的比较及其对医疗保健利用和药物依从性的影响。

Comparison of Medication Therapy Management Services and Their Effects on Health Care Utilization and Medication Adherence.

机构信息

1 Humana, Louisville, Kentucky.

2 Humana Healthcare Research, Louisville, Kentucky.

出版信息

J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2019 Jun;25(6):688-695. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2019.25.6.688.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Medication therapy management (MTM) programs are designed to improve clinical outcomes and enhance appropriate medication use. Comprehensive medication reviews (CMRs) and targeted medication reviews (TMRs) are 2 broad interventions defined within MTM services. While MTM services have been extensively researched, there are few comparisons of CMR versus non-CMR interventions. Given the variability in MTM interventions and lack of a consistent TMR definition in the literature, this study sought to compare CMRs and TMRs that were clearly defined based on Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) criteria.

OBJECTIVES

To (a) compare acute inpatient admissions and emergency department (ED) visits between patients participating in MTM services (CMR, TMR, or both) and eligible nonparticipating patients and (b) examine the effect of receiving TMR services on medication adherence.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with Medicare Part D coverage who received MTM services and a 1:1 propensity score-matched control group. Participants had to be eligible for MTM services in 2014 or 2015 based on CMS requirements. CMRs were offered to all MTM-eligible patients, while TMRs were completed based on clinical rules that helped identify medication-related problems (MRPs). The date of MTM intervention, or eligibility for the control group, was considered the index date. Participants had to be continuously enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan that included prescription drug coverage during the study period and have at least 6 months of data before and after the index date. Medical and pharmacy claims were assessed to examine trend-adjusted inpatient admissions and ED visits from pre-index to post-index date for participants and matched controls.

RESULTS

In 2014 and 2015, receipt of TMR interventions was associated with statistically significant reductions in acute inpatient admissions. In 2014, there were 55.2 fewer admits per 1,000 individuals (95% CI = 29-81) and 30.8 fewer admits per 1,000 individuals in 2015 (95% CI = 20-42). Receipt of CMR-only interventions was associated with fewer acute inpatient admissions only when coupled with preidentification of MRPs (36.8 [95% CI = 25-49] fewer admits per 1,000 individuals). In 2015, there were significant reductions in ED visits for participants receiving TMR-only interventions or TMR/CMR interventions (26.1 [95% CI = 11-41] and 12.0 [95% CI = 1-23] fewer ED visits per 1,000 individuals, respectively). In both years, a larger percentage (0.4% for oral diabetes medications; 7.7% for antihypertensives; 3.0% for statins) of MTM participants had greater improvements in medication adherence in the post-index period compared with controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Receiving MTM services targeted at resolution of MRPs (TMR or CMR/TMR) resulted in positive reductions in health care utilization and increases in medication adherence. Given the importance of optimal medication utilization, this study highlights the need for additional focus on resolution of MRPs through TMRs and CMRs that can support improved clinical outcomes.

DISCLOSURES

No outside funding supported this study. Researchers completed the work as part of their employment with Humana. All authors are or were employees of Humana at the time of the study. There are no other conflicts of interest to disclose. This study was previously presented at AMCP Nexus 2017 on October 16, 2017, in Dallas, TX.

摘要

背景

药物治疗管理 (MTM) 计划旨在改善临床结果并增强适当的药物使用。综合药物审查 (CMR) 和针对性药物审查 (TMR) 是 MTM 服务中定义的 2 种广泛干预措施。尽管 MTM 服务已得到广泛研究,但 CMR 与非 CMR 干预措施的比较很少。鉴于 MTM 干预措施的多样性以及文献中缺乏一致的 TMR 定义,本研究旨在比较基于医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心 (CMS) 标准明确定义的 CMR 和 TMR。

目的

(a) 比较参与 MTM 服务 (CMR、TMR 或两者兼有) 的患者与符合条件的非参与者之间的急性住院入院和急诊部 (ED) 就诊次数,(b) 检查接受 TMR 服务对药物依从性的影响。

方法

这是一项对 2014 年或 2015 年有 Medicare Part D 覆盖的患者的回顾性队列研究,这些患者接受了 MTM 服务和 1:1 倾向评分匹配的对照组。参与者必须根据 CMS 要求有资格在 2014 年或 2015 年获得 MTM 服务。CMR 提供给所有有资格获得 MTM 的患者,而 TMR 则根据有助于识别药物相关问题 (MRP) 的临床规则完成。MTM 干预或对照组的资格日期被视为索引日期。参与者必须在研究期间连续参加包括处方药覆盖的医疗保险优势计划,并且在索引日期前后至少有 6 个月的数据。评估医疗和药房索赔,以检查参与者和匹配对照组在索引日期前后的趋势调整后住院入院和 ED 就诊次数。

结果

在 2014 年和 2015 年,接受 TMR 干预与急性住院入院次数显著减少相关。2014 年,每 1000 人中有 55.2 次住院治疗减少(95%CI=29-81),2015 年每 1000 人中有 30.8 次住院治疗减少(95%CI=20-42)。当与预先确定的 MRP 结合使用时,仅接受 CMR 干预与急性住院入院次数减少相关(每 1000 人中有 36.8 [95%CI=25-49]的住院治疗减少)。2015 年,接受 TMR 单一干预或 TMR/CMR 干预的患者的 ED 就诊次数显著减少(分别为每 1000 人减少 26.1 [95%CI=11-41]和 12.0 [95%CI=1-23]的 ED 就诊次数)。在这两年中,与对照组相比,更大比例(口服糖尿病药物为 0.4%;抗高血压药物为 7.7%;他汀类药物为 3.0%)的 MTM 参与者在索引后期间药物依从性有了更大的改善。

结论

接受针对解决 MRP 的 MTM 服务(TMR 或 CMR/TMR)可显著减少医疗保健利用并提高药物依从性。鉴于最佳药物利用的重要性,本研究强调需要通过 TMR 和 CMR 来解决更多的 MRP,以支持改善临床结果。

披露

本研究没有外部资金支持。研究人员作为其在 Humana 的雇佣关系完成了这项工作。所有作者在研究期间都是 Humana 的员工或曾经是 Humana 的员工。没有其他利益冲突需要披露。这项研究之前曾于 2017 年 10 月 16 日在达拉斯举行的 AMCP Nexus 2017 上进行了介绍。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验