Dataset Information

The effects of mandatory prescribing of thiazides for newly treated, uncomplicated hypertension: interrupted time-series analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The purpose of our study was to evaluate the effects of a new reimbursement rule for antihypertensive medication that made thiazides mandatory first-line drugs for newly treated, uncomplicated hypertension. The objective of the new regulation was to reduce drug expenditures.

Methods and findings

We conducted an interrupted time-series analysis on prescribing data before and after the new reimbursement rule for antihypertensive medication was put into effect. All patients started on antihypertensive medication in 61 general practices in Norway were included in the analysis. The new rule was put forward by the Ministry of Health and was approved by parliament. Adherence to the rule was monitored only minimally, and there were no penalties for non-adherence. Our primary outcome was the proportion of thiazide prescriptions among all prescriptions made for persons started on antihypertensive medication. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients who, within 4 mo, reached recommended blood-pressure goals and the proportion of patients who, within 4 mo, were not started on a second antihypertensive drug. We also compared drug costs before and after the intervention. During the baseline period, 10% of patients started on antihypertensive medication were given a thiazide prescription. This proportion rose steadily during the transition period, after which it remained stable at 25%. For other outcomes, no statistically significant differences were demonstrated. Achievement of treatment goals was slightly higher (56.6% versus 58.4%) after the new rule was introduced, and the prescribing of a second drug was slightly lower (24.0% versus 21.8%). Drug costs were reduced by an estimated Norwegian kroner 4.8 million (0.58 million Euros, US$0.72 million) in the first year, which is equivalent to Norwegian kroner 1.06 per inhabitant (0.13 Euros, US$0.16).

Conclusions

Prescribing of thiazides in Norway for uncomplicated hypertension more than doubled after a reimbursement rule requiring the use of thiazides as the first-choice therapy was put into effect. However, the resulting savings on drug expenditures were modest. There were no significant changes in the achievement of treatment goals or in the prescribing of a second antihypertensive drug.

SUBMITTER: Fretheim A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1904466 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is a strong need to improve medication adherence (MA) for individuals with hypertension in order to reduce long-term hospitalization costs. We believe this can be achieved through an artificial intelligence agent that helps the patient in understanding key individual adherence risk factors and designing an appropriate intervention plan. The incidence of hypertension in Sweden is estimated at approximately 27%. Although blood pressure control has increased in Sweden, barely half of the treated patients achieved adequate blood pressure levels. It is a major risk factor for coronary heart disease and stroke as well as heart failure. MA is a key factor for good clinical outcomes in persons with hypertension.ObjectiveThe overall aim of this study is to design, develop, test, and evaluate an adaptive digital intervention called iMedA, delivered via a mobile app to improve MA, self-care management, and blood pressure control for persons with hypertension.MethodsThe study design is an interrupted time series. We will collect data on a daily basis, 14 days before, during 6 months of delivering digital interventions through the mobile app, and 14 days after. The effect will be analyzed using segmented regression analysis. The participants will be recruited in Region Halland, Sweden. The design of the digital interventions follows the just-in-time adaptive intervention framework. The primary (distal) outcome is MA, and the secondary outcome is blood pressure. The design of the digital intervention is developed based on a needs assessment process including a systematic review, focus group interviews, and a pilot study, before conducting the longitudinal interrupted time series study.ResultsThe focus groups of persons with hypertension have been conducted to perform the needs assessment in a Swedish context. The design and development of digital interventions are in progress, and the interventions are planned to be ready in November 2020. Then, the 2-week pilot study for usability evaluation will start, and the interrupted time series study, which we plan to start in February 2021, will follow it.ConclusionsWe hypothesize that iMedA will improve medication adherence and self-care management. This study could illustrate how self-care management tools can be an additional (digital) treatment support to a clinical one without increasing burden on health care staff.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04413500; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04413500.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/24494.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the impact of a pay for performance incentive on quality of care and outcomes among UK patients with hypertension in primary care.DesignInterrupted time series.SettingThe Health Improvement Network (THIN) database, United Kingdom.Participants470 725 patients with hypertension diagnosed between January 2000 and August 2007.InterventionThe UK pay for performance incentive (the Quality and Outcomes Framework), which was implemented in April 2004 and included specific targets for general practitioners to show high quality care for patients with hypertension (and other diseases).Main outcome measuresCentiles of systolic and diastolic blood pressures over time, rates of blood pressure monitoring, blood pressure control, and treatment intensity at monthly intervals for baseline (48 months) and 36 months after the implementation of pay for performance. Cumulative incidence of major hypertension related outcomes and all cause mortality for subgroups of newly treated (treatment started six months before pay for performance) and treatment experienced (started treatment in year before January 2001) patients to examine different stages of illness.ResultsAfter accounting for secular trends, no changes in blood pressure monitoring (level change 0.85, 95% confidence interval -3.04 to 4.74, P=0.669 and trend change -0.01, -0.24 to 0.21, P=0.615), control (-1.19, -2.06 to 1.09, P=0.109 and -0.01, -0.06 to 0.03, P=0.569), or treatment intensity (0.67, -1.27 to 2.81, P=0.412 and 0.02, -0.23 to 0.19, P=0.706) were attributable to pay for performance. Pay for performance had no effect on the cumulative incidence of stroke, myocardial infarction, renal failure, heart failure, or all cause mortality in both treatment experienced and newly treated subgroups.ConclusionsGood quality of care for hypertension was stable or improving before pay for performance was introduced. Pay for performance had no discernible effects on processes of care or on hypertension related clinical outcomes. Generous financial incentives, as designed in the UK pay for performance policy, may not be sufficient to improve quality of care and outcomes for hypertension and other common chronic conditions.