Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation (ADAPT), Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Durham, North Carolina.
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2021 Jul;27(7):924-935. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2021.27.7.924.
The prevalence of financial medication assistance (FMA), including patient assistance programs, coupons/copayment cards, vouchers, discount cards, and programs/pharmacy services that help patients apply for such programs, has increased. The impact of FMA on medication adherence and persistence has not been synthesized. The primary objective of this study was to review published studies evaluating the impact of FMA on the three phases of medication adherence (initiation [or primary adherence], implementation [or secondary adherence], and discontinuation) and persistence. Among these studies, the secondary objective was to report the impact of FMA on patient out-of-pocket costs and clinical outcomes. A systematic review was performed using MEDLINE and Web of Science. Of 656 articles identified, eight studies met all inclusion criteria. Seven studies examined FMA for medications treating cardiovascular diseases, while one study assessed FMA for cancer medications. Among included studies, FMA had a positive impact on medication adherence or persistence, and most measured this impact over one year or less. Of the three phases of medication adherence, implementation (5 of 8) was most commonly reported, followed by discontinuation (3 of 8), and then initiation (1 of 8). Regarding implementation, users of FMA had a higher mean medication possession ratio (MPR) than nonusers, ranging from 7 to 18 percentage points higher. The percentage of patients who discontinued medication was 7 percentage points lower in users of FMA versus nonusers for cardiovascular disease states. In one cancer study, FMA had a larger impact on initiation than discontinuation, ie, compared to nonusers, users of FMA were less likely to abandon an initial prescription (risk ratio= 0.12, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.08-0.18), and this effect was larger than the decreased likelihood of discontinuing the medication (hazard ratio = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.66-0.88). In 3 of 8 studies reporting on medication persistence, FMA increased the odds of medication persistence for one year ranged from 11% to 47%, depending on the study. In addition to adherence, half of the studies reported on FMA impacts on patient out-of-pocket costs and 3 of 8 studies reported on clinical outcomes. Impacts on patient out-of-pocket costs were mixed; two studies reported that out-of-pocket costs were higher for users of a coupon or a voucher versus nonusers, one study reported the opposite, and one study reported null effects. Impacts on clinical outcomes were either positive or null. We found that FMA has positive impacts on all phases of medication adherence as well as medication persistence over one year. Future studies should assess whether FMA has differential impacts based on phase of medication adherence and report on its longer-term (ie, beyond one year) impacts on medication adherence. This work was sponsored by a grant from Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). PhRMA had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Hung reports past employment by Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and CVS Health and a grant from PhRMA outside of the submitted work. Zullig reports research funding from Proteus Digital Health and the PhRMA Foundation. consulting fees from Novartis. Reed reports receiving research support from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Janssen Research & Development, Monteris, PhRMA Foundation, and TESARO and consulting fees from Sanofi/Regeneron, NovoNordisk, SVC Systems, and Minomic International, Inc. Bosworth reports research grants from the PhRMA Foundation, Proteus Digital Health, Otsuka, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Improved Patient Outcomes, Boehinger Ingelheim, NIH, and VA, as well as consulting fees from Sanofi, Novartis, Otsuka, Abbott, Xcenda, Preventric Diagnostics, and the Medicines Company. The other authors have nothing to report. This work was presented as a poster presentation at the ESPACOMP Annual Meeting in November 2020.
药物经济援助(FMA)的流行率不断上升,包括患者援助计划、优惠券/共付卡、代金券、折扣卡和帮助患者申请此类计划的药房服务。然而,FMA 对药物依从性和持久性的影响尚未得到综合评估。本研究的主要目的是回顾评估 FMA 对药物依从性三个阶段(起始[或主要依从性]、实施[或次要依从性]和停止)和持久性影响的已发表研究。在这些研究中,次要目标是报告 FMA 对患者自付费用和临床结果的影响。采用 MEDLINE 和 Web of Science 进行系统评价。在确定的 656 篇文章中,有 8 项研究符合所有纳入标准。7 项研究评估了心血管疾病药物的 FMA,1 项研究评估了癌症药物的 FMA。在纳入的研究中,FMA 对药物依从性或持久性有积极影响,大多数研究在一年或更短时间内测量了这一影响。在药物依从性的三个阶段中,实施(8 项研究中的 5 项)最常被报道,其次是停止(8 项研究中的 3 项),然后是起始(8 项研究中的 1 项)。关于实施,FMA 用户的药物占有比(MPR)比非用户高,高 7-18 个百分点。心血管疾病状态下,FMA 用户的药物停药率比非用户低 7 个百分点。在一项癌症研究中,FMA 对起始的影响大于停止,即与非用户相比,FMA 用户不太可能放弃初始处方(风险比=0.12,95%置信区间[CI]:0.08-0.18),这种效果大于停止用药的可能性降低(风险比=0.76,95%CI:0.66-0.88)。在报告药物持久性的 8 项研究中的 3 项中,FMA 增加了一年药物持久性的几率,范围为 11%-47%,具体取决于研究。除了依从性,一半的研究报告了 FMA 对患者自付费用的影响,8 项研究中的 3 项报告了临床结果。对患者自付费用的影响喜忧参半;两项研究报告说,优惠券或代金券的使用者比非使用者自付费用更高,一项研究报告相反,一项研究报告无影响。对临床结果的影响或为阳性或为中性。我们发现 FMA 对药物依从性的所有阶段以及一年以上的药物持久性都有积极影响。未来的研究应该评估 FMA 是否根据药物依从性阶段产生不同的影响,并报告其对药物依从性的长期(即一年以上)影响。这项工作得到了制药研究和制造商协会(PhRMA)的资助。PhRMA 在研究设计、数据收集和分析、出版决定或手稿准备方面没有任何作用。Hung 报告过去受雇于蓝十字蓝盾协会和 CVS Health,并从 PhRMA 获得了研究资助。Zullig 报告说他的研究经费来自 Proteus Digital Health 和 PhRMA 基金会,从 Novartis 获得咨询费。Reed 报告说他从 Abbott Vascular、AstraZeneca、Janssen Research & Development、Monteris、PhRMA 基金会和 TESARO 获得研究支持,并从 Sanofi/Regeneron、NovoNordisk、SVC Systems 和 Minomic International,Inc. 获得咨询费。Bosworth 报告说他从 PhRMA 基金会、Proteus Digital Health、Otsuka、Novo Nordisk、Sanofi、Improved Patient Outcomes、Boehinger Ingelheim、NIH 和 VA 获得研究资助,以及从 Sanofi、Novartis、Otsuka、Abbott、Xcenda、Preventric Diagnostics 和 Medicines Company 获得咨询费。其他作者没有什么可报告的。这项工作在 2020 年 11 月的 ESPACOMP 年会上作为海报展示。