Adherence to cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulators: analysis of a national specialty pharmacy database.

Zumi Mehta, Khalid M Kamal, Richard Miller, Jordan R Covvey, Vincent Giannetti
{"title":"Adherence to cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulators: analysis of a national specialty pharmacy database.","authors":"Zumi Mehta, Khalid M Kamal, Richard Miller, Jordan R Covvey, Vincent Giannetti","doi":"10.1080/21556660.2021.1912352","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There have been significant advances in Cystic Fibrosis (CF) treatment, with the introduction of Cystic Fibrosis Transmembrane Conductance Regulator (CFTR) modulators. Adherence is an important goal for CF management, as nonadherence is linked to poor health outcomes.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To calculate the medication adherence in patients taking CFTR modulators using a national specialty pharmacy database.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective observational cohort study utilized de-identified specialty pharmacy data from September 2017 to August 2018 to assess medication adherence for three CFTR modulators: ivacaftor, lumacaftor/ivacaftor, and tezacaftor/ivacaftor & ivacaftor. The primary outcome was proportion of days covered (PDC) for each medication, with mean PDC values compared across age groups and insurance characteristics. All analyses were performed using the SAS 9.4 University Edition (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 2,548 patients were analyzed, including 1,289 (50.59%) patients on lumacaftor/ivacaftor, 784 (30.77%) on ivacaftor, and 475 (18.64%) on tezacaftor/ivacaftor & ivacaftor. The mean PDC value for all CFTR modulators was above 0.80. Tezacaftor/ivacaftor & ivacaftor had the highest overall PDC of 0.92, while PDC values for both lumacaftor/ivacaftor and ivacaftor were 0.84. Children/adolescents on lumacaftor/ivacaftor (<i>p</i> = 0.0001) and tezacaftor/ivacaftor & ivacaftor (<i>p</i> = 0.001) had significantly higher mean PDC values compared to adults but not for ivacaftor (<i>p</i> = 0.3744). No statistical differences were seen in PDC across insurance characteristics.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to assess the adherence of three CFTR modulators using a large nationwide specialty database. With high acquisition costs of CFTR modulator therapies, there is a need to improve rates of adherence in patients with CF.</p>","PeriodicalId":15631,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Drug Assessment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/d4/76/IJDA_10_1912352.PMC8078929.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Drug Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21556660.2021.1912352","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: There have been significant advances in Cystic Fibrosis (CF) treatment, with the introduction of Cystic Fibrosis Transmembrane Conductance Regulator (CFTR) modulators. Adherence is an important goal for CF management, as nonadherence is linked to poor health outcomes.

Objective: To calculate the medication adherence in patients taking CFTR modulators using a national specialty pharmacy database.

Methods: This retrospective observational cohort study utilized de-identified specialty pharmacy data from September 2017 to August 2018 to assess medication adherence for three CFTR modulators: ivacaftor, lumacaftor/ivacaftor, and tezacaftor/ivacaftor & ivacaftor. The primary outcome was proportion of days covered (PDC) for each medication, with mean PDC values compared across age groups and insurance characteristics. All analyses were performed using the SAS 9.4 University Edition (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).

Results: A total of 2,548 patients were analyzed, including 1,289 (50.59%) patients on lumacaftor/ivacaftor, 784 (30.77%) on ivacaftor, and 475 (18.64%) on tezacaftor/ivacaftor & ivacaftor. The mean PDC value for all CFTR modulators was above 0.80. Tezacaftor/ivacaftor & ivacaftor had the highest overall PDC of 0.92, while PDC values for both lumacaftor/ivacaftor and ivacaftor were 0.84. Children/adolescents on lumacaftor/ivacaftor (p = 0.0001) and tezacaftor/ivacaftor & ivacaftor (p = 0.001) had significantly higher mean PDC values compared to adults but not for ivacaftor (p = 0.3744). No statistical differences were seen in PDC across insurance characteristics.

Conclusion: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to assess the adherence of three CFTR modulators using a large nationwide specialty database. With high acquisition costs of CFTR modulator therapies, there is a need to improve rates of adherence in patients with CF.

Abstract Image

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
坚持使用囊性纤维化跨膜传导调节剂 (CFTR) 调节剂:全国专科药房数据库分析。
背景:随着囊性纤维化跨膜传导调节器(CFTR)调节剂的问世,囊性纤维化(CF)治疗取得了重大进展。坚持用药是治疗囊性纤维化的一个重要目标,因为不坚持用药会导致不良的健康后果:利用全国专科药房数据库计算服用 CFTR 调节剂患者的用药依从性:这项回顾性观察队列研究利用 2017 年 9 月至 2018 年 8 月期间去标识化的专科药房数据,评估三种 CFTR 调节剂的用药依从性:ivacaftor、lumacaftor/ivacaftor 和 tezacaftor/ivacaftor & ivacaftor。主要结果是每种药物的覆盖天数比例(PDC),并比较不同年龄组和保险特征的平均 PDC 值。所有分析均使用 SAS 9.4 大学版(SAS Institute,Cary,NC)进行:共对2548名患者进行了分析,其中1289名(50.59%)患者使用lumacaftor/ivacaftor,784名(30.77%)患者使用ivacaftor,475名(18.64%)患者使用tezacaftor/ivacaftor & ivacaftor。所有 CFTR 调节剂的平均 PDC 值均高于 0.80。特扎卡夫托/伊伐卡夫托和伊伐卡夫托的总体PDC值最高,为0.92,而鲁马卡夫托/伊伐卡夫托和伊伐卡夫托的PDC值均为0.84。与成人相比,使用 lumacaftor/ivacaftor (p = 0.0001) 和 tezacaftor/ivacaftor & ivacaftor (p = 0.001) 的儿童/青少年的平均 PDC 值显著较高,但 ivacaftor (p = 0.3744)则不然。不同保险特征的 PDC 无统计学差异:据我们所知,这是第一项利用大型全国性专科数据库评估三种 CFTR 调节剂依从性的研究。由于 CFTR 调节剂疗法的购买成本较高,因此有必要提高 CF 患者的依从率。
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
Journal of Drug Assessment
Journal of Drug Assessment PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Treatment and comorbidity burden among people living with HIV: a review of systematic literature reviews. Investigation of potential substandard dry powder inhalers on EU and North African markets - evaluation of the delivered and fine particle doses. Real world evidence study on treatment patterns and health resource utilization in patients with HR+/HER2- locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer in Korea. A review of the risks of long-term consequences associated with components of the CHOP chemotherapy regimen. Real-world experience of ocrelizumab in multiple sclerosis in an Arab population.
×
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