A real-world study of persistence and adherence to prescription medications in patients with chronic idiopathic constipation in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: At present, 4 prescription therapies have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) in adults. OBJECTIVES: To compare persistence with and adherence to prucalopride vs 3 other prescription medications for CIC in a US population. METHODS: This retrospective, observational cohort study used data from the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters and Medicare Supplemental Databases (January 2015-June 2020). Inclusion criteria were patients (aged ≥18 years) with at least 1 prescription fill for prucalopride, lubiprostone, linaclotide, or plecanatide on or after April 2, 2019 (commercial availability of prucalopride), and at least 1 constipation-related diagnosis code. Persistence was assessed by time to discontinuation, and adherence was assessed by the proportion of days covered (PDC) and the proportion of patients who achieved PDC of at least 80%. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for discontinuation and odds ratios for adherence were calculated. RESULTS: = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study indicate that prucalopride has higher treatment persistence and adherence compared with other CIC prescription medications. This research represents the first instance of a real-world claims study showcasing such outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".