Does co-payment for inhaler devices affect therapy adherence and disease outcomes? A historical, matched cohort study.

IF 2.3 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Pragmatic and Observational Research Pub Date : 2017-04-18 eCollection Date: 2017-01-01 DOI:10.2147/POR.S132658
Jaco Voorham, Bernard Vrijens, Job Fm van Boven, Dermot Ryan, Marc Miravitlles, Lisa M Law, David B Price
{"title":"Does co-payment for inhaler devices affect therapy adherence and disease outcomes? A historical, matched cohort study.","authors":"Jaco Voorham,&nbsp;Bernard Vrijens,&nbsp;Job Fm van Boven,&nbsp;Dermot Ryan,&nbsp;Marc Miravitlles,&nbsp;Lisa M Law,&nbsp;David B Price","doi":"10.2147/POR.S132658","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Adherence to asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treatment has been shown to depend on patient-level factors, such as disease severity, and medication-level factors, such as complexity. However, little is known about the impact of prescription charges - a factor at the health care system level. This study used real-life data to investigate whether co-payment affects adherence (implementation and persistence) and disease outcomes in patients with asthma or COPD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A matched, historical cohort study was carried out using two UK primary care databases. The exposure was co-payment for prescriptions, which is required for most patients in England but not in Scotland. Two comparison cohorts were formed: one comprising patients registered at general practices in England and the other comprising patients registered in Scotland. Patients aged 20-59 years with asthma, or 40-59 years with COPD, who were initiated on fluticasone propionate/salmeterol xinafoate, were included, matched to patients in the opposite cohort, and followed up for 1 year following fluticasone propionate/salmeterol xinafoate initiation. The primary outcome was good adherence, defined as medication possession ratio ≥80%, and was analyzed using conditional logistic regression. Secondary outcomes included exacerbation rate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 1,640 patients in the payment cohort, ie, England (1,378 patients with asthma and 262 patients with COPD) and 619 patients in the no-payment cohort, ie, Scotland (512 patients with asthma and 107 patients with COPD). The proportion of patients with good adherence was 34.3% and 34.9% in the payment and no-payment cohorts, respectively, across both disease groups. In a multivariable model, no difference in odds of good adherence was found between the cohorts (odds ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-1.27). There was also no difference in exacerbation rate.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There was no difference in adherence between matched patients registered in England and Scotland, suggesting that prescription charges do not have an impact on adherence to treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":20399,"journal":{"name":"Pragmatic and Observational Research","volume":"8 ","pages":"31-41"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2017-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2147/POR.S132658","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pragmatic and Observational Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/POR.S132658","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Background: Adherence to asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treatment has been shown to depend on patient-level factors, such as disease severity, and medication-level factors, such as complexity. However, little is known about the impact of prescription charges - a factor at the health care system level. This study used real-life data to investigate whether co-payment affects adherence (implementation and persistence) and disease outcomes in patients with asthma or COPD.

Methods: A matched, historical cohort study was carried out using two UK primary care databases. The exposure was co-payment for prescriptions, which is required for most patients in England but not in Scotland. Two comparison cohorts were formed: one comprising patients registered at general practices in England and the other comprising patients registered in Scotland. Patients aged 20-59 years with asthma, or 40-59 years with COPD, who were initiated on fluticasone propionate/salmeterol xinafoate, were included, matched to patients in the opposite cohort, and followed up for 1 year following fluticasone propionate/salmeterol xinafoate initiation. The primary outcome was good adherence, defined as medication possession ratio ≥80%, and was analyzed using conditional logistic regression. Secondary outcomes included exacerbation rate.

Results: There were 1,640 patients in the payment cohort, ie, England (1,378 patients with asthma and 262 patients with COPD) and 619 patients in the no-payment cohort, ie, Scotland (512 patients with asthma and 107 patients with COPD). The proportion of patients with good adherence was 34.3% and 34.9% in the payment and no-payment cohorts, respectively, across both disease groups. In a multivariable model, no difference in odds of good adherence was found between the cohorts (odds ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-1.27). There was also no difference in exacerbation rate.

Conclusion: There was no difference in adherence between matched patients registered in England and Scotland, suggesting that prescription charges do not have an impact on adherence to treatment.

Abstract Image

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
吸入器的共同支付是否会影响治疗依从性和疾病结局?一项历史的、匹配的队列研究。
背景:哮喘和慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)治疗的依从性已被证明取决于患者水平的因素,如疾病严重程度,以及药物水平的因素,如复杂性。然而,人们对处方收费的影响知之甚少——这是卫生保健系统层面的一个因素。本研究使用真实数据来调查共同支付是否会影响哮喘或COPD患者的依从性(实施和持久性)和疾病结局。方法:使用两个英国初级保健数据库进行匹配的历史队列研究。暴露的风险是处方的共同支付,这是英格兰大多数患者所要求的,但苏格兰没有。形成了两个比较队列:一个包括在英格兰全科诊所注册的患者,另一个包括在苏格兰注册的患者。纳入20-59岁的哮喘患者,或40-59岁的COPD患者,这些患者开始使用丙酸氟替卡松/沙美特罗新酸盐,与相反队列的患者相匹配,并在丙酸氟替卡松/沙美特罗新酸盐开始后随访1年。主要结局为良好的依从性,定义为药物持有率≥80%,并使用条件逻辑回归进行分析。次要结局包括恶化率。结果:付费队列中有1640例患者,即英格兰(哮喘1378例,COPD 262例),无付费队列中有619例患者,即苏格兰(哮喘512例,COPD 107例)。在两种疾病组中,付费组和无付费组中依从性良好的患者比例分别为34.3%和34.9%。在多变量模型中,各组间良好依从性的几率没有差异(比值比,1.04;95%置信区间0.85-1.27)。两组的急性加重率也无差异。结论:在英格兰和苏格兰注册的匹配患者的依从性没有差异,这表明处方收费对治疗的依从性没有影响。
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
Pragmatic and Observational Research
Pragmatic and Observational Research MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊介绍: Pragmatic and Observational Research is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access journal that publishes data from studies designed to closely reflect medical interventions in real-world clinical practice, providing insights beyond classical randomized controlled trials (RCTs). While RCTs maximize internal validity for cause-and-effect relationships, they often represent only specific patient groups. This journal aims to complement such studies by providing data that better mirrors real-world patients and the usage of medicines, thus informing guidelines and enhancing the applicability of research findings across diverse patient populations encountered in everyday clinical practice.
期刊最新文献
Improving the Transparency and Replicability of Consensus Methods: Respiratory Medicine as a Case Example. Non-Alcoholic Steatohepatitis Patient Characterization and Real-World Management Approaches in Italy. Comparing Machine Learning and Advanced Methods with Traditional Methods to Generate Weights in Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting: The INFORM Study. Involvement of Root Canal Treatment in Pro-Inflammatory Processes - A Real-World Study. UK Electronic Healthcare Records for Research: A Scientometric Analysis of Respiratory, Cardiovascular, and COVID-19 Publications.
×
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