Adherence to Statin Therapy Among US Adults Between 2007 and 2014
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Prior studies suggest that persistence with and adherence to statin therapy is low. Interventions to improve statin persistence and adherence have been developed over the past decade. Methods and Results This was a retrospective cohort study of adults aged ≥21 y with commercial or government health insurance in the MarketScan (Truven Health Analytics) and Medicare databases who initiated statins in 2007–2014 and (1) started treatment after a myocardial infarction (n=201 573), (2) had diabetes mellitus but without coronary heart disease (CHD; n=610 049), or (3) did not have CHD or diabetes mellitus (n=2 244 868). Persistence with (ie, not discontinuing treatment) and high adherence to statin therapy were assessed using pharmacy fills in the year following treatment initiation. In 2007 and 2014, the proportions of patients persistent with statin therapy were 78.1% and 79.1%, respectively, among those initiating treatment following myocardial infarction; 66.5% and 67.3%, respectively, for those with diabetes mellitus but without CHD; and 64.3% and 63.9%, respectively, for those without CHD or diabetes mellitus. Between 2007 and 2014, high adherence to statin therapy increased from 57.9% to 63.8% among patients initiating treatment following myocardial infarction and from 34.9% to 37.6% among those with diabetes mellitus but without CHD (each P trend <0.001). Among patients without CHD or diabetes mellitus, high adherence did not improve between 2007 (35.7%) and 2014 (36.8%; P trend =0.14). In 2014, statin adherence was lower among younger, black, and Hispanic patients versus white patients and those initiating a high‐intensity statin dosage. Statin adherence was higher among men and patients with cardiologist care following treatment initiation. Conclusions Persistence with and adherence to statin therapy remain low, particularly among those without CHD.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".