Ryan P Hickson1,2, Izabela E Annis1, Ley A Killeya-Jones1, Gang Fang1. 1. Division of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 2. Department of Epidemiology, UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The rationale for choosing a final group-based trajectory modeling (GBTM) specification and evaluations of patient adherence patterns within groups are often omitted in the GBTM medication adherence literature. We aimed to (1) reveal the complexity of GBTM and (2) assess model discrimination of patient medication adherence patterns. METHODS: Medicare administrative claims were used to measure statin medication adherence as a continuous value in the 6 months before an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) hospitalization. Different GBTM specifications beyond default settings were constructed and compared with the Bayesian information criterion. Spaghetti plots were used to compare individual adherence patterns with group averages. RESULTS: Overall, 113,296 prevalent statin users met eligibility criteria. Four adherence groups were identified: persistently adherent, moderately adherent, progressively nonadherent, and persistently nonadherent. Spaghetti plots showed the persistently adherent and persistently nonadherent groups had relatively homogeneous adherence patterns that matched predicted trajectories well. Spaghetti plots also showed that, while adherence patterns in the progressively nonadherent group were not as homogeneous, most patients in this group appeared to be discontinuing statin therapy pre-AMI. CONCLUSIONS: Subjective decisions are necessary to identify a final trajectory model. Greater transparency and disclosure of these decisions in the medication adherence literature are needed. Individual patient adherence patterns from spaghetti plots provided additional diagnostic information about trajectory models beyond standard model-fit assessments to determine if group-average adherence estimates represent homogeneous patterns of medication adherence.
PURPOSE: The rationale for choosing a final group-based trajectory modeling (GBTM) specification and evaluations of patient adherence patterns within groups are often omitted in the GBTM medication adherence literature. We aimed to (1) reveal the complexity of GBTM and (2) assess model discrimination of patient medication adherence patterns. METHODS: Medicare administrative claims were used to measure statin medication adherence as a continuous value in the 6 months before an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) hospitalization. Different GBTM specifications beyond default settings were constructed and compared with the Bayesian information criterion. Spaghetti plots were used to compare individual adherence patterns with group averages. RESULTS: Overall, 113,296 prevalent statin users met eligibility criteria. Four adherence groups were identified: persistently adherent, moderately adherent, progressively nonadherent, and persistently nonadherent. Spaghetti plots showed the persistently adherent and persistently nonadherent groups had relatively homogeneous adherence patterns that matched predicted trajectories well. Spaghetti plots also showed that, while adherence patterns in the progressively nonadherent group were not as homogeneous, most patients in this group appeared to be discontinuing statin therapy pre-AMI. CONCLUSIONS: Subjective decisions are necessary to identify a final trajectory model. Greater transparency and disclosure of these decisions in the medication adherence literature are needed. Individual patient adherence patterns from spaghetti plots provided additional diagnostic information about trajectory models beyond standard model-fit assessments to determine if group-average adherence estimates represent homogeneous patterns of medication adherence.
Authors: Jennifer L Hargrove; Virginia Pate; Carri H Casteel; Yvonne M Golightly; Laura R Loehr; Stephen W Marshall; Til Stürmer Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 2.689
Authors: Jessica M Franklin; William H Shrank; Juliana Pakes; Gabriel Sanfélix-Gimeno; Olga S Matlin; Troyen A Brennan; Niteesh K Choudhry Journal: Med Care Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Richard A Hansen; Mimi M Kim; Liping Song; Wanzhu Tu; Jingwei Wu; Michael D Murray Journal: Ann Pharmacother Date: 2009-03-03 Impact factor: 3.154
Authors: Ryan P Hickson; Jennifer G Robinson; Izabela E Annis; Ley A Killeya-Jones; Maarit Jaana Korhonen; Ashley L Cole; Gang Fang Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2017-10-19 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Caroline A Walsh; Sara Mucherino; Valentina Orlando; Kathleen E Bennett; Enrica Menditto; Caitriona Cahir Journal: HRB Open Res Date: 2020-05-19
Authors: Pascal C Baumgartner; Bernard Vrijens; Samuel Allemann; Kurt E Hersberger; Isabelle Arnet Journal: Pharmaceutics Date: 2022-01-02 Impact factor: 6.321
Authors: Mollie E Wood; Angela Lupattelli; Kristin Palmsten; Gretchen Bandoli; Caroline Hurault-Delarue; Christine Damase-Michel; Christina D Chambers; Hedvig M E Nordeng; Marleen M H J van Gelder Journal: Epidemiol Rev Date: 2022-01-14 Impact factor: 6.222