Aníbal García-Sempere1,2, Isabel Hurtado1,2, José Sanfélix-Genovés3, Clara Rodríguez-Bernal1,2, Salvador Peiró1,2, Gabriel Sanfélix-Gimeno1,2. 1. Health Services Research Unit, Fundación para el Fomento de la Investigación Sanitaria y Biomédica de la Comunidad Valenciana (FISABIO), Valencia, Spain. 2. Spanish Network for Health Services Research in Chronic Care - Red de Investigación en Servicios de Salud en Enfermedades Crónicas (REDISSEC), Madrid, Spain. 3. Primary Care Centre of Nazaret District, Valencia, Spain.
Abstract
Objective: We compare estimates of proportion of days covered (PDC) based on dispensation-only data versus linked prescription and dispensation information, and we analyse their differences in a real-world cohort of patients with osteoporosis. Methods: Prospective cohort study. We compared four alternative measures of PDC, using dispensation-only data: a) with a fixed assessment interval; b) censoring the assessment interval at the moment of the last refill; and using linked prescription and dispensation data: c) considering a minimum prescription gap of three months to interpret interruption by the physician; and d) considering any prescription gap. Results: The mean PDC at 12 months for new users was 63.1% using dispensation-only data and a fixed interval, 86.0% using dispensation-only data and a last-refill interval, 81% using linked dispensation and prescription data and censoring any period without prescription, and 78.3% when using linked prescription and dispensation data and censoring periods of at least 3 months. For experienced users, the figures were 80.0%, 88.9%, 83% and 81%, respectively. Overall, dispensation-based measures presented issues of patient misclassification.Conclusions: Linked prescription and dispensation data allows for more precise PDC estimates than dispensation-only data, as both primary non-adherence and early non-adherence periods, and fully non-adherent patients, are all identified and accounted for.
Objective: We compare estimates of proportion of days covered (PDC) based on dispensation-only data versus linked prescription and dispensation information, and we analyse their differences in a real-world cohort of patients with osteoporosis. Methods: Prospective cohort study. We compared four alternative measures of PDC, using dispensation-only data: a) with a fixed assessment interval; b) censoring the assessment interval at the moment of the last refill; and using linked prescription and dispensation data: c) considering a minimum prescription gap of three months to interpret interruption by the physician; and d) considering any prescription gap. Results: The mean PDC at 12 months for new users was 63.1% using dispensation-only data and a fixed interval, 86.0% using dispensation-only data and a last-refill interval, 81% using linked dispensation and prescription data and censoring any period without prescription, and 78.3% when using linked prescription and dispensation data and censoring periods of at least 3 months. For experienced users, the figures were 80.0%, 88.9%, 83% and 81%, respectively. Overall, dispensation-based measures presented issues of patient misclassification.Conclusions: Linked prescription and dispensation data allows for more precise PDC estimates than dispensation-only data, as both primary non-adherence and early non-adherence periods, and fully non-adherent patients, are all identified and accounted for.
Entities:
Keywords:
Proportion of days covered; dispensation data; medication adherence; methods; prescription data; real-world data
Authors: Amanda M Kibbons; Megan Peter; Josh DeClercq; Leena Choi; Jacob Bell; Jacob Jolly; Elizabeth Cherry; Bassel Alhashemi; Nisha B Shah; Autumn D Zuckerman Journal: Drugs Real World Outcomes Date: 2020-09-21
Authors: Amanda M Kibbons; Megan Peter; Josh DeClercq; Leena Choi; Jacob Bell; Jacob Jolly; Elizabeth Cherry; Bassel Alhashemi; Nisha B Shah; Autumn D Zuckerman Journal: Drugs Real World Outcomes Date: 2020-12