Impact of adherence to treatment with tiotropium and fluticasone propionate/salmeterol in chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Poor adherence to treatment may contribute to the treatment gap in chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD). The aim of the current study was to describe the association between adherence to treatment and the risk of COPD moderate (ME) and severe (SE) exacerbations, and health care utilization. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Observational single cohort study utilizing the Quebec Provincial Health Insurance databases. All patients older than 40 years with a diagnosis of COPD between 2001 and 2010 were entered in the study cohort at the time of their first prescription for tiotropium (TIO) alone or co-administered with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (TIO + FSC). Follow-up continued to the last known claim or death. Adherence was measured by the medication possession ratio (MPR) ≥80% and persistence defined as no treatment gap ≥30 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: ME was defined as use of an oral corticosteroid or antibiotic, SE as COPD related hospitalization or an emergency room (ER) visit. COPD related health care resource utilization ascertained was prescription of rescue medications, ER visits, hospitalizations, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, intubations, and general practitioner (GP) and respirologist visits. RESULTS: There were 23,707 patients included in this study. Compliance and persistence with TIO for monotherapy patients were 61.1% and 47.6% respectively. For patients treated with TIO + FSC, compliance and persistence for TIO were 62.9% and 45.3% respectively, and for FSC they were 35.4% and 33.0%. Multivariate analyses showed a significant (P < 0.001) adjusted odds ratios for ME (OR(ME)) and SE (OR(SE)) for TIO compliant vs. non-compliant patients (TIO: OR(ME) = 0.543, OR(SE) = 0.712; TIO + FSC: OR(ME) = 0.436, OR(SE) = 0.570). Similarly for FSC compliance: OR(ME) = 0.546; OR(SE) = 0.749. Similar results were observed for persistence. Compliance and persistence with TIO and FSC were associated with significantly reduced rates of health care utilization. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the typical limitations of an administrative database study, the results of this large population-based study have shown that reduced adherence to treatment with TIO and FSC is associated with increased risk for exacerbations and higher health care utilization in COPD patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".