A real-world study of persistence and adherence to prescription medications in patients with chronic idiopathic constipation in the United States.

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Brooks D Cash, Mei Lu, Anthony Lembo, Paul Feuerstadt, Linda Nguyen, Emi Terasawa, Rajeev Ayyagari, Shawn Du, Selina Pi, Ben Westermeyer, Brian Terreri, Mena Boules, Baharak Moshiree
{"title":"A real-world study of persistence and adherence to prescription medications in patients with chronic idiopathic constipation in the United States.","authors":"Brooks D Cash, Mei Lu, Anthony Lembo, Paul Feuerstadt, Linda Nguyen, Emi Terasawa, Rajeev Ayyagari, Shawn Du, Selina Pi, Ben Westermeyer, Brian Terreri, Mena Boules, Baharak Moshiree","doi":"10.18553/jmcp.2024.30.10.1136","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>At present, 4 prescription therapies have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) in adults.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare persistence with and adherence to prucalopride vs 3 other prescription medications for CIC in a US population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective, observational cohort study used data from the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters and Medicare Supplemental Databases (January 2015-June 2020). Inclusion criteria were patients (aged ≥18 years) with at least 1 prescription fill for prucalopride, lubiprostone, linaclotide, or plecanatide on or after April 2, 2019 (commercial availability of prucalopride), and at least 1 constipation-related diagnosis code. Persistence was assessed by time to discontinuation, and adherence was assessed by the proportion of days covered (PDC) and the proportion of patients who achieved PDC of at least 80%. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for discontinuation and odds ratios for adherence were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 14,700 patients (mean age = 48.3 years; female = 81.9%) were included (prucalopride, n = 675; lubiprostone, n = 1,591; linaclotide, n = 11,105; plecanatide, n = 1,329). After adjusting for confounding factors, the HRs for discontinuation were significantly higher for all comparator medications compared with prucalopride after 2 months (HR [95% CI]: lubiprostone, 1.70 [1.48-1.95]; linaclotide, 1.25 [1.10-1.41]; plecanatide, 1.31 [1.13-1.51], all <i>P</i> < 0.001). The unadjusted mean (SD) PDC was 0.53 (0.32) with prucalopride compared with 0.41 (0.31); <i>P</i> less than 0.001 with lubiprostone, 0.48 (0.31), <i>P</i> less than 0.05 with linaclotide, and 0.48 (0.29), <i>P</i> = 0.98 with plecanatide. The comparator medications were all associated with lower odds of achieving PDC of at least 80% relative to prucalopride (odds ratio [95% CI]: lubiprostone, 0.52 [0.40-0.69], <i>P</i> < 0.001; linaclotide, 0.73 [0.58-0.93], <i>P</i> = 0.009; plecanatide, 0.70 [0.53-0.93], <i>P</i> = 0.015).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings of this study indicate that prucalopride has higher treatment persistence and adherence compared with other CIC prescription medications. This research represents the first instance of a real-world claims study showcasing such outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":16170,"journal":{"name":"Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11424913/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2024.30.10.1136","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: At present, 4 prescription therapies have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) in adults.

Objectives: To compare persistence with and adherence to prucalopride vs 3 other prescription medications for CIC in a US population.

Methods: This retrospective, observational cohort study used data from the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters and Medicare Supplemental Databases (January 2015-June 2020). Inclusion criteria were patients (aged ≥18 years) with at least 1 prescription fill for prucalopride, lubiprostone, linaclotide, or plecanatide on or after April 2, 2019 (commercial availability of prucalopride), and at least 1 constipation-related diagnosis code. Persistence was assessed by time to discontinuation, and adherence was assessed by the proportion of days covered (PDC) and the proportion of patients who achieved PDC of at least 80%. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for discontinuation and odds ratios for adherence were calculated.

Results: A total of 14,700 patients (mean age = 48.3 years; female = 81.9%) were included (prucalopride, n = 675; lubiprostone, n = 1,591; linaclotide, n = 11,105; plecanatide, n = 1,329). After adjusting for confounding factors, the HRs for discontinuation were significantly higher for all comparator medications compared with prucalopride after 2 months (HR [95% CI]: lubiprostone, 1.70 [1.48-1.95]; linaclotide, 1.25 [1.10-1.41]; plecanatide, 1.31 [1.13-1.51], all P < 0.001). The unadjusted mean (SD) PDC was 0.53 (0.32) with prucalopride compared with 0.41 (0.31); P less than 0.001 with lubiprostone, 0.48 (0.31), P less than 0.05 with linaclotide, and 0.48 (0.29), P = 0.98 with plecanatide. The comparator medications were all associated with lower odds of achieving PDC of at least 80% relative to prucalopride (odds ratio [95% CI]: lubiprostone, 0.52 [0.40-0.69], P < 0.001; linaclotide, 0.73 [0.58-0.93], P = 0.009; plecanatide, 0.70 [0.53-0.93], P = 0.015).

Conclusions: The findings of this study indicate that prucalopride has higher treatment persistence and adherence compared with other CIC prescription medications. This research represents the first instance of a real-world claims study showcasing such outcomes.

美国慢性特发性便秘患者坚持服用处方药的真实世界研究。
背景:目前,美国食品和药物管理局已批准 4 种处方疗法用于治疗成人慢性特发性便秘(CIC):在美国人群中,比较普鲁卡必利与其他三种处方药治疗 CIC 的持续性和依从性:这项回顾性、观察性队列研究使用的数据来自 IBM MarketScan 商业索赔和会诊以及医疗保险补充数据库(2015 年 1 月至 2020 年 6 月)。纳入标准为在2019年4月2日或之后(普鲁卡必利的商业化上市日)至少开过一次普鲁卡必利、卢比前列通、利纳洛泰或褶卡那泰处方,且至少有一个便秘相关诊断代码的患者(年龄≥18岁)。持续性通过停药时间进行评估,依从性通过覆盖天数比例(PDC)和PDC至少达到80%的患者比例进行评估。计算了停药的调整危险比(HRs)和坚持治疗的几率比:共纳入 14,700 名患者(平均年龄 = 48.3 岁;女性 = 81.9%)(普鲁卡必利,n = 675;卢比前列酮,n = 1,591;利纳洛肽,n = 11,105;哌卡那肽,n = 1,329)。在对混杂因素进行调整后,与普鲁卡必利相比,所有对比药物在2个月后的停药HRs均显著高于普鲁卡必利(HR [95% CI]:卢比前列通,1.70 [1.48-1.95];利那洛肽,1.25 [1.10-1.41];悦康那肽,1.31 [1.13-1.51],所有P均<0.001)。普鲁卡洛必利的未调整平均(标度)PDC为0.53(0.32),而普鲁卡洛必利为0.41(0.31);卢比前列酮的P小于0.001;利纳洛肽的P小于0.05,为0.48(0.31);plecanatide的P=0.98,为0.48(0.29)。与普鲁卡必利相比,比较药物均降低了达到至少 80% PDC 的几率(几率比 [95%CI]:卢比前列酮,0.52 [0.40-0.69],P <0.001;利纳氯泰,0.73 [0.58-0.93],P =0.009;悦康那肽,0.70 [0.53-0.93],P =0.015):本研究结果表明,与其他 CIC 处方药相比,普鲁卡必利的治疗持续性和依从性更高。这项研究首次在真实世界的索赔研究中展示了此类结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy
Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy Health Professions-Pharmacy
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.80%
发文量
131
期刊介绍: JMCP welcomes research studies conducted outside of the United States that are relevant to our readership. Our audience is primarily concerned with designing policies of formulary coverage, health benefit design, and pharmaceutical programs that are based on evidence from large populations of people. Studies of pharmacist interventions conducted outside the United States that have already been extensively studied within the United States and studies of small sample sizes in non-managed care environments outside of the United States (e.g., hospitals or community pharmacies) are generally of low interest to our readership. However, studies of health outcomes and costs assessed in large populations that provide evidence for formulary coverage, health benefit design, and pharmaceutical programs are of high interest to JMCP’s readership.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信