Adherence Associated With Oral Medications in the Treatment of Spasticity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine adherence to baclofen, tizanidine, and dantrolene (U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved oral spasticity medications), and identified determinants of adherence. DESIGN: A retrospective administrative claims data analysis that used medical and pharmacy claims data and enrollment information from a large, national U.S. health plan. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The subjects were commercial health plan members who initiated treatment on baclofen, tizanidine, or dantrolene from January 1, 2004, through September 30, 2009, and who had stroke, spinal cord injury, traumatic brain injury, cerebral palsy, or multiple sclerosis. Descriptive and logistic regression statistical analyses were performed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes were adherence, measured as continuous medication possession ratio (MPR) and as a binary indicator (MPR ≥0.80, adherent; MPR <0.80, nonadherent), change in oral spasticity medication, and use of nonoral spasticity therapy. RESULTS: The study population included 2840 subjects. Adherence overall was poor: the range of mean unadjusted MPR values was 0.10-0.50, which indicated that, at best, the subjects were adherent to their index spasticity medications for 50% of their treatment periods. Unadjusted overall MPRs for baclofen and tizanidine were 20.4% and 9.1%, respectively. Fewer than 5% of subjects changed oral spasticity medications. The results of logistic regression to identify determinants of adherence showed that subjects treated with tizanidine versus baclofen had 37.4% lower odds of adherence and that subjects with traumatic brain injury versus stroke had 77.5% lower odds of adherence. The odds of adherence increased with age and with preindex contracture or decubitus ulcer. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to oral spasticity medication was poor irrespective of index spasticity medication or condition. Results from this study indicated that physicians cannot assume that patients are adherent to prescribed oral spasticity medications. A more complete understanding of the reasons behind nonadherence is required.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".