Impact of Once-Daily Versus Twice-Daily Dosing Frequency on Adherence to Chronic Medications among Patients with Venous Thromboembolism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multiple daily dosing may be negatively associated with patient medication adherence; however, adherence-related data are lacking in a patient population with venous thromboembolism (VTE). OBJECTIVE: To assess the adherence rates between once-daily (OD) and twice-daily (BID) dosing regimens of chronic medications in patients with VTE. METHODS: We analyzed the PharMetrics Integrated Claims database (claims of commercial insurers in the US) from 1 January 2004, through 31 December 2009. Adult patients with continuous insurance coverage, newly initiated on diabetes mellitus or hypertension medication, and having at least one VTE diagnosis were included. Adherence to OD and BID therapies was calculated by using two measures: medication possession ratio (MPR) and proportion of days covered (PDC). Adherence was defined as an MPR or PDC ≥0.8. Multivariate logistic regressions were conducted to compare the probability of adherence between the OD and BID groups adjusting for baseline confounders. RESULTS: A total of 4,867 OD and 1,069 BID patients were identified. Mean duration of exposure to therapy for OD and BID patients was 386 and 356 days (p = 0.011), respectively. Based on MPR, 69 % of OD and 62 % of BID patients were adherent (p < 0.001). For PDC at 12 months, the proportion of adherent patients for the OD and BID groups was 45 and 36 % (p < 0.001), respectively. Adjusted odds ratios (95 % CI) of adherence for the OD relative to BID group were 1.61 (1.37-1.89) based on MPR (p < 0.001) and 1.46 (1.16-1.83) based on PDC at 12 months (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that VTE patients treated with chronic medications on OD dosing regimens were associated with an approximately 39-61 % higher likelihood of adherence compared with subjects on BID dosing regimens.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".