MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2101212412 · doi:10.18553/jmcp.2009.15.6.476

Retrospective Observational Assessment of Statin Adherence Among Subjects Patronizing Different Types of Community Pharmacies in Canada

2009· article· en· W2101212412 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Charity Evans, Dean T. Eurich, Darcy A. Lamb, Jeffrey G. Taylor, Derek Jorgenson, William Semchuk, Kerry Mansell, David Blackburn

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Managed Care Pharmacy · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMedication Adherence and Compliance
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Saskatchewan
Organismes subventionnairesFondation pour la Recherche Médicale
Mots-clésMedicineMedical prescriptionPharmacyStatinFamily medicineObservational studyRetrospective cohort studyPrescription drugEmergency medicineInternal medicinePharmacology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Community pharmacies vary widely in terms of ownership structures, location, and dispensing policies. It is unknown if an association exists between the type of community pharmacy and the degree of medication adherence exhibited by patrons-patients. OBJECTIVE: To describe adherence to statin therapy among subjects patronizing different types of community pharmacy categories (department- mass merchandise, chain-franchise, and independent-banner) in Saskatchewan, Canada, between 2000 and 2005. METHODS: Study data were obtained from the Saskatchewan Drug Plan and Extended Benefits database, which is maintained by the government of Saskatchewan, Canada. The study included all subjects who (a) filled a statin prescription within selected community pharmacies between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2005; (b) had no record of statin prescriptions during the year prior to the first statin prescription, according to the records of the Saskatchewan Drug Plan and Extended Benefits; and (c) demonstrated active utilization in the drug plan database for at least 1 year after the first statin prescription. The proxy criterion for activity was any dispensing record for statin or nonstatin medications at least 1 year following the index claim. Statin adherence level was estimated as tablets per day, defined as the total number of tablets dispensed divided by the total number of days of observation. Each subject's observation period began on the index date and ended on the earlier of (a) 30 days after the last recorded fill for any type of prescription medication (statin or nonstatin), or (b) December 31, 2005. The primary end point was the proportion of subjects within each pharmacy category who maintained an adherence level of 80% or greater during their individual observation period. Additional adherence calculations were performed for each of 3 time periods, beginning on the index date and ending on days 365, 729, and 1094 (i.e., 1, 2, and 3 years). Patients were included in the analysis for each time period if they met a proxy criterion for availability for observation, defined as the dispensing of any drug at least 1 day after the end date of each period. Pearson chi square tests were used to assess the significance of differences in baseline characteristics and adherence proportions, comparing pharmacy categories. Logistic regression analysis estimated the odds of an adherence level of at least 80% during the individual observation period, adjusting for pharmacy category, sex, age 65 years or older, known low-income drug coverage, number of distinct drug classes filled concurrently during the first year of observation, loyalty to index pharmacy, and length of observation. Using similar methods, we also estimated "pharmacy loyalty" by calculating the proportion of subjects who refilled 75% or more of their statin prescriptions at the pharmacy that dispensed their first statin prescription. RESULTS: From an initial sample of 12,818 subjects who had at least 1 pharmacy claim for a statin in the period from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2005, 8699 subjects met the inclusion criteria. Subjects were observed for a mean (SD, range) of 3.7 (1.7, 1.0-7.0) years after the index statin prescription. During the first year following the index claim, statin adherence rates were at least 80% for 1799 of 3761 (47.8%) patrons of department-mass merchandise, 1778 of 3235 (55.0%) patrons of chain-franchise, and 921 of 1703 (54.1%) patrons of independent-banner stores (P < 0.001). Measured from the index date through day 1094, 869 of 2292 (37.9%), 874 of 1887 (46.3%), and 457 of 975 (46.9%) subjects in the department-mass merchandise, chain-franchise, and independent banner categories, respectively, had a statin adherence level of at least 80% (P < 0.001). In logistic regression analysis, pharmacy category type was significantly associated with statin adherence; subjects in the chain franchise and independent-banner categories were more likely to be adherent to their statin medications during their observation periods than were those in the department-mass merchandise category (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 1.36, 95% CI = 1.23-1.50, P < 0.001 and OR = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.24-1.57, P < 0.001, respectively). From the index date through day 1094, 1752 of 2292 (76.4%), 1475 of 1887 (78.2%), and 795 of 975 (81.5%) subjects remained pharmacy-loyal in the department-mass merchandise, chain franchise, and independent-banner categories, respectively (P = 0.006). Controlling for several potential confounders using logistic regression, independent-banner pharmacy patrons were more likely to remain pharmacy- loyal during their observation periods than were those patronizing department-mass merchandise (adjusted OR = 1.34, 95% CI = 1.16-1.54, P < 0.001) or chain-franchise stores (adjusted OR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.06-1.42, P = 0.009). CONCLUSION: One year after their first statin fill, subjects demonstrated low rates of adherence, ranging from 48% to 55%, regardless of the type of pharmacy they patronized. Although the differences by type of pharmacy reached statistical significance, their clinical importance is not evident, reinforcing the fact that the problem of nonadherence appears to exist among all types of community pharmacies, regardless of their categorization.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,025
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,992

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,088
Tête enseignante GPT0,378
Écart entre enseignants0,289 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations38
Publié2009
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Managed Care PharmacyMême sujetMedication Adherence and ComplianceTravaux en français237 207