Eliminating Medication Copayments for Low-Income Older Adults at High Cardiovascular Risk: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: One in eight people with heart disease has poor medication adherence that, in part, is related to copayment costs. This study tested whether eliminating copayments for high-value medications among low-income older adults at high cardiovascular risk would improve clinical outcomes. Methods: This randomized 2×2 factorial trial studied 2 distinct interventions in Alberta, Canada: eliminating copayments for high-value preventive medications and a self-management education and support program (reported separately). The findings for the first intervention, which waived the usual 30% copayment on 15 medication classes commonly used to reduce cardiovascular events, compared with usual copayment, is reported here. The primary outcome was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, and cardiovascular-related hospitalizations over a 3-year follow-up. Rates of the primary outcome and its components were compared using negative binomial regression. Secondary outcomes included quality of life (Euroqol 5-dimension index score), medication adherence, and overall health care costs. Results: A total of 4761 individuals were randomized and followed for a median of 36 months. There was no evidence of statistical interaction ( P =0.99) or of a synergistic effect between the 2 interventions in the factorial trial with respect to the primary outcome, which allowed us to evaluate the effect of each intervention separately. The rate of the primary outcome was not reduced by copayment elimination, (521 versus 533 events, incidence rate ratio 0.84 [95% CI, 0.66–1.07], P =0.162). The incidence rate ratio for nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death (0.97 [95% CI, 0.67–1.39]), death (0.94 [95% CI, 0.80 to 1.11]), and cardiovascular-related hospitalizations (0.78 [95% CI, 0.57 to 1.06]) did not differ between groups. No significant between-group changes in quality of life over time were observed (mean difference, 0.012 [95% CI, –0.006 to 0.030], P =0.19). The proportion of participants who were adherent to statins was 0.72 versus 0.69 for the copayment elimination versus usual copayment groups, respectively (mean difference, 0.03 [95% CI, 0.006–0.06], P =0.016). Overall adjusted health care costs did not differ ($3575 [95% CI, –605 to 7168], P =0.098). Conclusions: In low-income adults at high cardiovascular risk, eliminating copayments (average, $35/mo) did not improve clinical outcomes or reduce health care costs, despite a modest improvement in adherence to medications. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02579655.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».