澳大利亚肺动脉高压患者服用马西替坦与安立生坦和波生坦的依从性比较:一项回顾性真实世界数据库研究。

IF 2.9 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Journal of Medical Economics Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-04-10 DOI:10.1080/13696998.2024.2328483
Edmund Lau, Eugene Kotlyar, Yogeshwar Makanji, Dae Young Yu, Jin Yu Tan, Jeremy Casorso, Mahsa H Kouhkamari, Sooyeol Lim, David Bin-Chia Wu, Paul Bloomfield
{"title":"澳大利亚肺动脉高压患者服用马西替坦与安立生坦和波生坦的依从性比较:一项回顾性真实世界数据库研究。","authors":"Edmund Lau, Eugene Kotlyar, Yogeshwar Makanji, Dae Young Yu, Jin Yu Tan, Jeremy Casorso, Mahsa H Kouhkamari, Sooyeol Lim, David Bin-Chia Wu, Paul Bloomfield","doi":"10.1080/13696998.2024.2328483","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Bosentan, ambrisentan, and macitentan are endothelin receptor antagonists (ERAs), currently available in Australia for treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). This study assessed the comparative adherence of these ERAs for PAH in Australian patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective, observational study used data for adults with PAH from the Services Australia 10% Pharmaceuticals Benefits Scheme (PBS) dataset (01/2006-10/2020). The primary outcome was treatment adherence (i.e. receiving ≥80% of ERA doses over 12 months). Secondary outcomes were time to treatment change (add-on or switch) and overall survival.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 436 patients who took bosentan (<i>n</i> = 200), ambrisentan (<i>n</i> = 69), or macitentan (<i>n</i> = 167). Treatment adherence was significantly greater in patients who received macitentan (65.3%) versus ambrisentan (56.5%) and bosentan (58.0%), with odds ratios (ORs; 95% CI) of 0.51 (0.30-0.88; <i>p</i> = 0.016) for bosentan versus macitentan and 0.48 (0.24-0.96; <i>p</i> = 0.037) for ambrisentan versus macitentan. The median time to treatment change was 47.2 and 43.4 months for bosentan and ambrisentan, respectively (not calculated for macitentan because of insufficient duration of data).</p><p><strong>Limitations and conclusions: </strong>Real-world data for Australian patients with PAH showed that treatment adherence for ERAs was suboptimal. Adherence was higher for macitentan compared with ambrisentan and bosentan.</p>","PeriodicalId":16229,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Economics","volume":" ","pages":"596-604"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative adherence of macitentan versus ambrisentan and bosentan in Australian patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension: a retrospective real-world database study.\",\"authors\":\"Edmund Lau, Eugene Kotlyar, Yogeshwar Makanji, Dae Young Yu, Jin Yu Tan, Jeremy Casorso, Mahsa H Kouhkamari, Sooyeol Lim, David Bin-Chia Wu, Paul Bloomfield\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13696998.2024.2328483\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Bosentan, ambrisentan, and macitentan are endothelin receptor antagonists (ERAs), currently available in Australia for treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). This study assessed the comparative adherence of these ERAs for PAH in Australian patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective, observational study used data for adults with PAH from the Services Australia 10% Pharmaceuticals Benefits Scheme (PBS) dataset (01/2006-10/2020). The primary outcome was treatment adherence (i.e. receiving ≥80% of ERA doses over 12 months). Secondary outcomes were time to treatment change (add-on or switch) and overall survival.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 436 patients who took bosentan (<i>n</i> = 200), ambrisentan (<i>n</i> = 69), or macitentan (<i>n</i> = 167). Treatment adherence was significantly greater in patients who received macitentan (65.3%) versus ambrisentan (56.5%) and bosentan (58.0%), with odds ratios (ORs; 95% CI) of 0.51 (0.30-0.88; <i>p</i> = 0.016) for bosentan versus macitentan and 0.48 (0.24-0.96; <i>p</i> = 0.037) for ambrisentan versus macitentan. The median time to treatment change was 47.2 and 43.4 months for bosentan and ambrisentan, respectively (not calculated for macitentan because of insufficient duration of data).</p><p><strong>Limitations and conclusions: </strong>Real-world data for Australian patients with PAH showed that treatment adherence for ERAs was suboptimal. Adherence was higher for macitentan compared with ambrisentan and bosentan.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16229,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Economics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"596-604\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2024.2328483\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/4/10 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2024.2328483","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/4/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:博生坦、安立生坦和马西替坦是内皮素受体拮抗剂(ERA),目前在澳大利亚可用于治疗肺动脉高压(PAH)。本研究评估了澳大利亚患者使用这些ERA治疗PAH的依从性比较:这项回顾性、观察性研究使用了澳大利亚10%服务药品福利计划(PBS)数据集(01/2006-10/2020)中的PAH成人患者数据。主要结果是治疗依从性(即在12个月内接受ERA剂量的≥80%)。次要结果是改变治疗方法(加药或换药)的时间和总生存期:该研究纳入了436名患者,他们分别服用了波生坦(n = 200)、安立生坦(n = 69)或马西坦坦(n = 167)。接受马西替坦(65.3%)治疗的患者的治疗依从性明显高于安立生坦(56.5%)和波生坦(58.0%),波生坦与马西替坦的比值比(ORs;95% CI)为0.51 (0.30-0.88; P = 0.016),安立生坦与马西替坦的比值比(ORs;95% CI)为0.48 (0.24-0.96; P = 0.037)。波生坦和安立生坦的中位治疗改变时间分别为47.2个月和43.4个月(由于数据持续时间不足,未计算马西替坦的治疗改变时间):澳大利亚 PAH 患者的实际数据显示,ERAs 的治疗依从性并不理想。与安立生坦和波生坦相比,马西替坦的依从性更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative adherence of macitentan versus ambrisentan and bosentan in Australian patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension: a retrospective real-world database study.

Aim: Bosentan, ambrisentan, and macitentan are endothelin receptor antagonists (ERAs), currently available in Australia for treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). This study assessed the comparative adherence of these ERAs for PAH in Australian patients.

Methods: This retrospective, observational study used data for adults with PAH from the Services Australia 10% Pharmaceuticals Benefits Scheme (PBS) dataset (01/2006-10/2020). The primary outcome was treatment adherence (i.e. receiving ≥80% of ERA doses over 12 months). Secondary outcomes were time to treatment change (add-on or switch) and overall survival.

Results: The study included 436 patients who took bosentan (n = 200), ambrisentan (n = 69), or macitentan (n = 167). Treatment adherence was significantly greater in patients who received macitentan (65.3%) versus ambrisentan (56.5%) and bosentan (58.0%), with odds ratios (ORs; 95% CI) of 0.51 (0.30-0.88; p = 0.016) for bosentan versus macitentan and 0.48 (0.24-0.96; p = 0.037) for ambrisentan versus macitentan. The median time to treatment change was 47.2 and 43.4 months for bosentan and ambrisentan, respectively (not calculated for macitentan because of insufficient duration of data).

Limitations and conclusions: Real-world data for Australian patients with PAH showed that treatment adherence for ERAs was suboptimal. Adherence was higher for macitentan compared with ambrisentan and bosentan.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Medical Economics
Journal of Medical Economics HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
4.20%
发文量
122
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Economics'' mission is to provide ethical, unbiased and rapid publication of quality content that is validated by rigorous peer review. The aim of Journal of Medical Economics is to serve the information needs of the pharmacoeconomics and healthcare research community, to help translate research advances into patient care and be a leader in transparency/disclosure by facilitating a collaborative and honest approach to publication. Journal of Medical Economics publishes high-quality economic assessments of novel therapeutic and device interventions for an international audience
×
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