Sara Malo1,2, Isabel Aguilar-Palacio1,2, Cristina Feja1,2, María Jesús Lallana2,3, María José Rabanaque1,2, Javier Armesto4, Enrica Menditto5. 1. a Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health , University of Zaragoza , Zaragoza , Spain. 2. b Fundación Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Aragón (IIS Aragón) , Zaragoza , Spain. 3. c Pharmacy Service in Primary Health Care, Aragones Health Service , Zaragoza , Spain. 4. d Pharmacy Service, Aragones Health Service , Zaragoza , Spain. 5. e Center of Pharmacoeconomics (CIRFF), University of Naples Federico II , Naples , Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess suitability and comparability of the most common methods of treatment adherence and persistence assessment, as applied to the same pharmacy dataset. METHODS: Data on drugs prescribed for cardiovascular primary prevention to participants in the Aragon Workers' Health Study (AWHS) were collected from a regional electronic drug prescription database. Several different approaches were used to measure treatment adherence (with the medication possession ratio [MPR]) and proportion of days covered [PDC]) and persistence in new users by therapeutic subgroup. Defined daily dose (DDD) was used as a proxy of the number of days' supply, or substituted with surrogate daily dose values. RESULTS: Higher mean adherence values and proportions of adherent patients were obtained using MPR versus PDC, with additional differences depending on the approach used. The proportion of adherent patients was lowest for oral antidiabetics (14.4%-30.6%) and highest for antihypertensives (70.2%-82.1%). The use of surrogate daily dose values increased adherence for antidiabetics and statins and decreased adherence for antihypertensives. After a 1 year follow-up, treatment persistence was observed for 21.1%, 58.7%, and 29.5% of antidiabetic, antihypertensive and statin users, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that use of multiple measures of treatment adherence and persistence provides a more complete overview of medication use patterns, and certain limitations associated with DDD for some drug groups can be overcome with replacement by surrogate doses. The PDC indicator seems to provide a more accurate reflection of patient behavior and treatment continuity than the MPR. Any comparison of adherence/persistence should always consider the method used, variables analyzed, and corresponding data collection process.
OBJECTIVE: To assess suitability and comparability of the most common methods of treatment adherence and persistence assessment, as applied to the same pharmacy dataset. METHODS: Data on drugs prescribed for cardiovascular primary prevention to participants in the Aragon Workers' Health Study (AWHS) were collected from a regional electronic drug prescription database. Several different approaches were used to measure treatment adherence (with the medication possession ratio [MPR]) and proportion of days covered [PDC]) and persistence in new users by therapeutic subgroup. Defined daily dose (DDD) was used as a proxy of the number of days' supply, or substituted with surrogate daily dose values. RESULTS: Higher mean adherence values and proportions of adherent patients were obtained using MPR versus PDC, with additional differences depending on the approach used. The proportion of adherent patients was lowest for oral antidiabetics (14.4%-30.6%) and highest for antihypertensives (70.2%-82.1%). The use of surrogate daily dose values increased adherence for antidiabetics and statins and decreased adherence for antihypertensives. After a 1 year follow-up, treatment persistence was observed for 21.1%, 58.7%, and 29.5% of antidiabetic, antihypertensive and statin users, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that use of multiple measures of treatment adherence and persistence provides a more complete overview of medication use patterns, and certain limitations associated with DDD for some drug groups can be overcome with replacement by surrogate doses. The PDC indicator seems to provide a more accurate reflection of patient behavior and treatment continuity than the MPR. Any comparison of adherence/persistence should always consider the method used, variables analyzed, and corresponding data collection process.
Authors: Kyma Schnoor; Anke Versluis; Robbert Bakema; Sanne van Luenen; Marcel J Kooij; J Maurik van den Heuvel; Martina Teichert; Persijn J Honkoop; Job F M van Boven; Niels H Chavannes; Jiska J Aardoom Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-06-08 Impact factor: 7.076
Authors: Alba Sánchez-Viñas; Carmen Corral-Partearroyo; Montserrat Gil-Girbau; M Teresa Peñarrubia-María; Carmen Gallardo-González; María-Del-Carmen Olmos-Palenzuela; Ignacio Aznar-Lou; Antoni Serrano-Blanco; Maria Rubio-Valera Journal: BMC Prim Care Date: 2022-07-05
Authors: Sara Mucherino; Antonio Gimeno-Miguel; Jonas Carmona-Pirez; Francisca Gonzalez-Rubio; Ignatios Ioakeim-Skoufa; Aida Moreno-Juste; Valentina Orlando; Mercedes Aza-Pascual-Salcedo; Beatriz Poblador-Plou; Enrica Menditto; Alexandra Prados-Torres Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-21 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Przemyslaw Kardas; Isabel Aguilar-Palacio; Marta Almada; Caitriona Cahir; Elisio Costa; Anna Giardini; Sara Malo; Mireia Massot Mesquida; Enrica Menditto; Luís Midão; Carlos Luis Parra-Calderón; Enrique Pepiol Salom; Bernard Vrijens Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-08-27 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Rolf Wachter; Ana F Fonseca; Bogdan Balas; Elisabeth Kap; Johanna Engelhard; Raymond Schlienger; Sven Klebs; Sara Bruce Wirta; Karel Kostev Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2019-04-11 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Enrica Menditto; Caitriona Cahir; Sara Malo; Isabel Aguilar-Palacio; Marta Almada; Elisio Costa; Anna Giardini; María Gil Peinado; Mireia Massot Mesquida; Sara Mucherino; Valentina Orlando; Carlos Luis Parra-Calderón; Enrique Pepiol Salom; Przemyslaw Kardas; Bernard Vrijens Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-03 Impact factor: 3.390