MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract 13611: Adherence to Non-VKA Oral Anticoagulant Medications Based on the Pharmacy Quality Alliance Measure

2015· article· en· W2914521613 on OpenAlexaff
Colleen A. McHorney, Concetta Crivera, François Laliberté, Winnie W. Nelson, Guillaume Germain, Brahim Bookhart, Silas Martin, Jeffrey Schein, Patrick Lefèbvre, Steven Deitelzweig

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular Diseases
Canadian institutionsGroup for Research in Decision Analysis
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePharmacyMeasure (data warehouse)Oral anticoagulantAnticoagulantIntensive care medicineQuality (philosophy)WarfarinAtrial fibrillationFamily medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: CMS Star Ratings help inform beneficiaries about the performance of health and drug plans. Medication adherence and other pharmacy measures are currently weighted at nearly half of a Part D plan’s Star Ratings. Two, 3, 4 and 5 Star Ratings are based on achievement of adherence threshold levels (e.g. 74%, 79%, 82%, and 85% for oral diabetes medications). Including the adherence to non-VKA oral anticoagulant (NOACs) as a measure in the Star Ratings program may increase a plan’s incentives to improve patient adherence. Objective: To assess the adherence to medication of patients who used the NOACs rivaroxaban, dabigatran, or apixaban in 2014 based on the Pharmacy Quality Alliance (PQA) adherence measure. Methods: Healthcare claims from the Humana database between 07/2013 and 12/2014 were analyzed. Adult patients with ≥2 dispensings of NOAC agents in 2014, at least 180 days apart between two NOAC dispensings in 2014 (a criterion to include chronic users), with >60 days of supply, and ≥180 days of continuous enrollment prior to the index NOAC were identified. PQA measure was calculated as the percentage of patients who had a proportion of days covered (PDC) ≥80%. PQA measure was compared between rivaroxaban and each of the other two groups using chi squared tests. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were also conducted adjusting for baseline confounders. Results: A total of 11,095 rivaroxaban, 6,548 dabigatran, and 3,532 apixaban users were identified. Based on the PQA adherence measure (PDC ≥0.8), a significantly higher proportion of rivaroxaban users (72.7%) was found to be adherent compared to dabigatran (67.2%: p<.001) and apixaban (69.5%: p<.001) users. Compared to apixaban users, the adjusted likelihood of being adherent was significantly higher for rivaroxaban users (unadjusted OR: 1.17, p-value<.001; adjusted OR: 1.20, p-value<.001), and significantly lower for dabigatran users (unadjusted OR: 0.90, p-value=0.019; adjusted OR: 0.85, p-value<.001). Conclusion: Using the PQA’s adherence measure, rivaroxaban users were found to have a significantly higher adherence compared to apixaban and dabigatran users. Healthcare providers should consider the impact of anticoagulation selection on their ability to achieve quality metrics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.147
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular DiseasesFrench-language works237,207