Medication adherence to inhalation therapy and the risk of COPD exacerbations: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

IF 3.6 3区 医学 Q1 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM BMJ Open Respiratory Research Pub Date : 2024-09-19 DOI:10.1136/bmjresp-2023-001964
Delphine Vauterin, Frauke Van Vaerenbergh, Maxim Grymonprez, Anna Vanoverschelde, Lies Lahousse
{"title":"Medication adherence to inhalation therapy and the risk of COPD exacerbations: a systematic review with meta-analysis.","authors":"Delphine Vauterin, Frauke Van Vaerenbergh, Maxim Grymonprez, Anna Vanoverschelde, Lies Lahousse","doi":"10.1136/bmjresp-2023-001964","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Assessing medication adherence is crucial in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management to prevent exacerbations. However, it is unclear whether this association between adherence and exacerbations is influenced by the adherence assessment methods or thresholds used. Electronic healthcare databases are valuable to study exacerbations and adherence in real life. We aimed to systematically review the literature to identify adherence assessment methods and thresholds used in healthcare databases when investigating the association between medication adherence and COPD exacerbations and to meta-analyse the associated effect sizes.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>MEDLINE, Web of Science and Embase were searched for peer-reviewed articles, written in English, published up to 10 October 2022 (PROSPERO: CRD42022363449). Two reviewers independently conducted screening for inclusion and performed data extraction. A qualitative approach described the adherence assessment methods and thresholds used. A quantitative approach (meta-analysis using random effects model) estimated the association between adherence and the risk of COPD exacerbations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight studies were included in the systematic review of which five studies were included in the meta-analysis. The medication possession ratio (MPR) and the proportion of days covered (PDC) were the adherence assessment methods used and 0.80 was always used as threshold to differentiate good from poor adherence. Adherence and exacerbations were mostly measured over the same time period. Poor adherence (MPR or PDC<0.80) was significantly associated with a higher COPD exacerbation risk (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.62, I<sup>2</sup>=85%), regardless of the adherence assessment method used. Results were consistent when stratified by exacerbation severity. Poor adherence was also associated with a time-dependent risk of COPD exacerbations (incidence rate ratio 1.31, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.46).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our systematic review with meta-analysis demonstrated a 40% increased risk of COPD exacerbations in case of poor adherence to inhaler medication.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42022363449.</p>","PeriodicalId":9048,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Respiratory Research","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11418573/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Respiratory Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2023-001964","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Assessing medication adherence is crucial in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management to prevent exacerbations. However, it is unclear whether this association between adherence and exacerbations is influenced by the adherence assessment methods or thresholds used. Electronic healthcare databases are valuable to study exacerbations and adherence in real life. We aimed to systematically review the literature to identify adherence assessment methods and thresholds used in healthcare databases when investigating the association between medication adherence and COPD exacerbations and to meta-analyse the associated effect sizes.

Method: MEDLINE, Web of Science and Embase were searched for peer-reviewed articles, written in English, published up to 10 October 2022 (PROSPERO: CRD42022363449). Two reviewers independently conducted screening for inclusion and performed data extraction. A qualitative approach described the adherence assessment methods and thresholds used. A quantitative approach (meta-analysis using random effects model) estimated the association between adherence and the risk of COPD exacerbations.

Results: Eight studies were included in the systematic review of which five studies were included in the meta-analysis. The medication possession ratio (MPR) and the proportion of days covered (PDC) were the adherence assessment methods used and 0.80 was always used as threshold to differentiate good from poor adherence. Adherence and exacerbations were mostly measured over the same time period. Poor adherence (MPR or PDC<0.80) was significantly associated with a higher COPD exacerbation risk (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.62, I2=85%), regardless of the adherence assessment method used. Results were consistent when stratified by exacerbation severity. Poor adherence was also associated with a time-dependent risk of COPD exacerbations (incidence rate ratio 1.31, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.46).

Conclusion: Our systematic review with meta-analysis demonstrated a 40% increased risk of COPD exacerbations in case of poor adherence to inhaler medication.

Prospero registration number: CRD42022363449.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
吸入疗法的用药依从性与慢性阻塞性肺疾病恶化的风险:系统回顾与荟萃分析。
背景:在慢性阻塞性肺病(COPD)的治疗过程中,评估用药依从性对预防病情恶化至关重要。然而,依从性与病情加重之间的关系是否受依从性评估方法或所用阈值的影响尚不清楚。电子医疗数据库对于研究现实生活中的病情加重和依从性非常有价值。我们的目的是系统性地回顾文献,以确定医疗数据库在研究用药依从性与慢性阻塞性肺病加重之间的关系时所使用的依从性评估方法和阈值,并对相关效应大小进行元分析:检索了MEDLINE、Web of Science和Embase上截至2022年10月10日发表的同行评议文章(PROSPERO:CRD42022363449)。两名审稿人分别独立进行了纳入筛选和数据提取。定性方法描述了所使用的依从性评估方法和阈值。定量方法(使用随机效应模型进行荟萃分析)估算了依从性与慢性阻塞性肺疾病恶化风险之间的关系:系统综述共纳入了八项研究,其中五项纳入了荟萃分析。所采用的依从性评估方法是药物持有率(MPR)和覆盖天数比例(PDC),并始终以 0.80 作为区分依从性好坏的阈值。对依从性和病情恶化的测量大多在同一时期进行。无论采用哪种依从性评估方法,依从性差(MPR 或 PDC2=85%)。按病情加重严重程度分层后,结果一致。依从性差还与慢性阻塞性肺疾病加重的时间依赖性风险有关(发病率比为 1.31,95% CI 为 1.17 至 1.46):我们的系统综述和荟萃分析表明,如果吸入器用药依从性差,慢性阻塞性肺病恶化的风险会增加 40%:CRD42022363449。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Open Respiratory Research
BMJ Open Respiratory Research RESPIRATORY SYSTEM-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
2.40%
发文量
95
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Open Respiratory Research is a peer-reviewed, open access journal publishing respiratory and critical care medicine. It is the sister journal to Thorax and co-owned by the British Thoracic Society and BMJ. The journal focuses on robustness of methodology and scientific rigour with less emphasis on novelty or perceived impact. BMJ Open Respiratory Research operates a rapid review process, with continuous publication online, ensuring timely, up-to-date research is available worldwide. The journal publishes review articles and all research study types: Basic science including laboratory based experiments and animal models, Pilot studies or proof of concept, Observational studies, Study protocols, Registries, Clinical trials from phase I to multicentre randomised clinical trials, Systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
期刊最新文献
Trends of mortality from chronic respiratory diseases by sex and ethnicity in the USA: a secular analysis from 1979 to 2021 using data from death certificates. Firefighters' occupational exposure to air pollution: impact on COPD and asthma-study protocol. Risk factors for incidence of interstitial lung disease in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pleural effusion in acute pulmonary embolism: characteristics and relevance. Pim1 inactivating induces RUNX3 upregulation that improves/alleviates airway inflammation and mucus hypersecretion in vitro and in vivo.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1