Dataset Information

Adherence to Newly Prescribed Diabetes Medications Among Insured Latino and White Patients With Diabetes.

ABSTRACT: Importance:Medication adherence is essential to diabetes care. Patient-physician language barriers may affect medication adherence among Latino individuals. Objective:To determine the association of patient race/ethnicity, preferred language, and physician language concordance with patient adherence to newly prescribed diabetes medications. Design, Setting, and Participants:This observational study was conducted from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2012, at a large integrated health care delivery system with professional interpreter services. Insured patients with type 2 diabetes, including English-speaking white, English-speaking Latino, or limited English proficiency (LEP) Latino patients with newly prescribed diabetes medication. Exposures:Patient race/ethnicity, preferred language, and physician self-reported Spanish-language fluency. Main Outcomes and Measures:Primary nonadherence (never dispensed), early-stage nonpersistence (dispensed only once), late-stage nonpersistence (received ?2 dispensings, but discontinued within 24 months), and inadequate overall medication adherence (>20% time without sufficient medication supply during 24 months after initial prescription). Results:Participants included 21?878 white patients, 5755 English-speaking Latino patients, and 3205 LEP Latino patients with a total of 46?131 prescriptions for new diabetes medications. Among LEP Latino patients, 50.2% (n?=?1610) had a primary care physician reporting high Spanish fluency. For oral medications, early adherence varied substantially: 1032 LEP Latino patients (32.2%), 1565 English-speaking Latino patients (27.2%), and 4004 white patients (18.3%) were either primary nonadherent or early nonpersistent. Inadequate overall adherence was observed in 1929 LEP Latino patients (60.2%), 2975 English-speaking Latino patients (51.7%), and 8204 white patients (37.5%). For insulin, early-stage nonpersistence was 42.8% among LEP Latino patients (n?=?1372), 34.4% among English-speaking Latino patients (n?=?1980), and 28.5% among white patients (n?=?6235). After adjustment for patient and physician characteristics, LEP Latino patients were more likely to be nonadherent to oral medications and insulin than English-speaking Latino patients (relative risks from 1.11 [95% CI, 1.06-1.15] to 1.17 [95% CI, 1.02-1.34]; P??.28). Conclusions and Relevance:Nonadherence to newly prescribed diabetes medications is substantially greater among Latino than white patients, even among English-speaking Latino patients. Limited English proficiency Latino patients are more likely to be nonadherent than English-speaking Latino patients independent of the Spanish-language fluency of their physicians. Interventions beyond access to interpreters or patient-physician language concordance will be required to improve medication adherence among Latino patients with diabetes.

SUBMITTER: Fernandez A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5814298 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Adherence to Newly Prescribed Diabetes Medications Among Insured Latino and White Patients With Diabetes.

Fernández Alicia A Quan Judy J Moffet Howard H Parker Melissa M MM Schillinger Dean D Karter Andrew J AJ

JAMA internal medicine 20170301 3

<h4>Importance</h4>Medication adherence is essential to diabetes care. Patient-physician language barriers may affect medication adherence among Latino individuals.<h4>Objective</h4>To determine the association of patient race/ethnicity, preferred language, and physician language concordance with patient adherence to newly prescribed diabetes medications.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>This observational study was conducted from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2012, at a large integra ...[more]

PMID: 28114642

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Achieving good medication adherence is a major challenge for patients with chronic conditions. Our study aimed to assess the Threshold for Unacceptable Risk of Non-adherence (TURN), defined as the threshold at which physicians consider the health risks incurred by patients due to medication non-adherence unacceptable, for the most commonly prescribed drugs in France. METHODS:We conducted an online study using a crowdsourcing approach among French general practitioners and specialists from September 2016 to August 2017. Physicians assessed the TURN for various levels of missed doses by evaluating a series of randomly presented clinical vignettes, each presenting a given medication with a given therapeutic indication. For each "drug-indication group" (i.e., all drugs from the same pharmacological class with a similar therapeutic indication): 1) we described the distribution of physicians' assessments, 2) we provided a summary estimate of the TURN, defined as the frequency of missed doses above which 75% of the physicians' assessments were located; 3) we computed the number of pill boxes reimbursed in France in 2016 to put our results into context. RESULTS:We collected a total of 5365 assessments from 544 physicians, each of whom evaluated a random sample among 528 distinct clinical vignettes. Estimates of the TURN varied widely across drug-indication groups, ranging from risk considered unacceptable with 1 daily dose missed per month (e.g., insulin for diabetes) to risk always considered acceptable (e.g., anti-dementia drugs). Drugs with an estimated TURN of over one missing daily dose per week represented 44.9% of the prescription volume of the medications assessed in our study. CONCLUSIONS:According to physicians, the impact of non-adherence may vary greatly. Patient-physician discussions on the variable consequences of non-adherence could lead to a paradigm shift by seeking to reach "optimal adherence" depending on drugs rather than unrealistic "perfect adherence" to all drugs.

Project description:ImportanceAntidepressants are one of the most commonly prescribed classes of psychotropic medications among US youths. For adults, there is emerging evidence on the increased risk of type 2 diabetes in association with antidepressant use. However, little is known about the antidepressant treatment-emergent risk of type 2 diabetes among youths.ObjectiveTo assess the association between antidepressant use and the risk of incident type 2 diabetes in youths by antidepressant subclass and according to duration of use, cumulative dose, and average daily dose.Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective cohort study was conducted using Medicaid claims data from 4 geographically diverse, large states of youths 5 to 20 years of age who initiated antidepressant treatment from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2009.ExposuresAntidepressant use (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs] or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors [SNRIs], tricyclic or other cyclic antidepressants, and other antidepressants) was assessed using the following 4 time-varying measures: current or former use, duration of use, cumulative dose, and average daily dose.Main outcomes and measuresIncident type 2 diabetes was assessed using discrete-time failure models, adjusting for disease risk score estimated using more than 125 baseline and time-dependent covariates.ResultsIn this cohort of 119 608 youths aged 5 to 20 years who initiated antidepressant treatment (59 087 female youths and 60 521 male youths; 54.7% between 5 and 14 years of age) with a mean follow-up of 22.8 months, 79 285 [66.3%] had SSRI or SNRI exposure. The risk of type 2 diabetes was significantly greater during current use than former use of SSRIs or SNRIs (absolute risk, 1.29 per 10 000 person-months vs 0.64 per 10 000 person-months; adjusted relative risk [RR], 1.88; 95% CI, 1.34-2.64) and tricyclic or other cyclic antidepressants (absolute risk, 0.89 per 10 000 person-months vs 0.48 per 10 000 person-months; RR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.06-4.36), but not of other antidepressants (absolute risk, 1.15 per 10 000 person-months vs 1.12 per 10 000 person-months; RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.66-1.50). Furthermore, for youths currently using SSRIs or SNRIs, the risk of type 2 diabetes increased with the duration of use (RR, 2.66; 95% CI, 1.45-4.88 for >210 days and RR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.29-5.08 for 151-210 days compared with 1-90 days) and with the cumulative dose (RR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.35-4.43 for >4500 mg and RR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.07-4.40 for 3001-4500 mg compared with 1-1500 mg in fluoxetine hydrochloride dose equivalents). By contrast, neither the duration nor the cumulative dose of other antidepressants was associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes. The risk of type 2 diabetes increased significantly with the average daily dose among youths with more than 150 days of SSRI or SNRI use (RR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.04-5.52 for >15.0 vs ≤15.0 mg/d) but not among youths with 1 to 150 days of SSRI or SNRI use.Conclusions and relevanceIn a large cohort of youths insured by Medicaid, the use of SSRIs or SNRIs-the most commonly used antidepressant subclass-was associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes that intensified with increasing duration of use, cumulative dose, and average daily dose.

Project description:ObjectiveChinese Americans are a fast-growing immigrant group with worse rheumatic disease outcomes compared to white populations and frequently use traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). Whether TCM use is associated with lower adherence to Western rheumatic medications is unknown. The present study was undertaken to examine adherence to Western medications for systemic rheumatic diseases in the Chinese American immigrant population and its association with TCM use.MethodsChinese Americans actively treated for a systemic rheumatic disease were recruited from 2 Chinatown clinics. Sociodemographic, TCM use, and clinical data were gathered. Self-reported health status was assessed using Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System short forms. Adherence was stratified using the 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale. Factors independently associated with high adherence were identified using multivariable logistic regression.ResultsOf 230 subjects, the median age was 55 years (range 20-97 years), 65% were female, 71% had a high school education or less, 70% were enrolled in Medicaid, and 22% reported fluency in English. The most common rheumatic diagnoses were rheumatoid arthritis (41%), systemic lupus erythematosus (17%), and seronegative spondyloarthropathies (15%). One-half reported TCM use in the past year, and 28% reported high adherence to Western rheumatic medications. In multivariable analysis, high adherence was associated with TCM use (odds ratio [OR] 3.96, P < 0.001), being married (OR 3.69, P = 0.004), medication regimen complexity (OR 1.13, P = 0.004), and older age (OR 1.06, P < 0.001), and was negatively associated with anxiety (OR 0.94, P = 0.001).ConclusionWhile adherence to Western rheumatic medications was low in this cohort, interestingly, it was higher among TCM users compared to nonusers. TCM use appears to represent a complementary rather than an alternate approach to disease management for these patients. Future studies should evaluate whether TCM use is associated with better disease outcomes.

Project description:PurposeTo determine rates of eye examinations and diabetic eye disease in the first 5 years after diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (DM2) among continuously insured adults.DesignRetrospective, longitudinal cohort study.ParticipantsInsured patients aged 40 years or older with newly diagnosed DM2 (n = 42 684), and control patients without diabetes matched on age, sex, and race were identified from a nationwide commercial claims database containing data from 2007 to 2015.MethodsAll patients were tracked for 6 years: 1 year before and 5 years after the index diabetes diagnosis. Receipt of eye care for individual patients was identified using International Classification of Diseases 9th edition (ICD-9) procedure codes or Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes indicating an eye examination, as well as encounters indicating the patient was seen by an ophthalmologist. A diagnosis of diabetic eye disease was determined by using ICD-9 codes.Main outcome measuresOutcome measures included annual receipt of eye care and development of diabetic eye disease, namely, diabetic retinopathy (DR). Associations between these outcomes and demographic factors were tested with multivariable logistic regression.ResultsDiabetic patients received more eye examinations than controls in each year, but no more than 40.4% of diabetic patients received an examination in any given year. Patients with Medicare Advantage received fewer eye examinations at 5 years (odds ratio [OR], 0.79; P < 0.01) than those with private insurance but were less likely to develop DR (OR, 0.71; P < 0.01). Hispanic patients had higher rates of DR (OR, 1.60; P < 0.01) and received fewer eye examinations (OR, 0.75; P < 0.01) at 5 years compared with White patients. Men received fewer eye examinations (OR, 0.84; P < 0.01) and were more likely to develop DR at 5 years (OR, 1.17; P < 0.01) than women. Patients with higher education were more likely to receive an eye examination and less likely to develop DR.ConclusionsThe majority of diabetic patients do not receive adequate eye care within the 5 years after initial diabetes diagnosis despite having insurance. Efforts should be made to improve adherence to screening guidelines, especially for vulnerable populations.

Project description:BackgroundThe global prevalence of diabetes is increasing. Medications are a recommended strategy to control hyperglycaemia. However, patient adherence can be variable, impacting health outcomes. A range of interventions for patients with type 2 diabetes have focused on improving treatment adherence. This review evaluates the impact of these interventions on adherence to anti-diabetic medications and focuses on the methods and tools used to measure adherence.MethodMedline, Embase, CINAHL, IPA, PUBmed, and PsychINFO were searched for relevant articles published in 2000-2013, using appropriate search terms.ResultsFifty two studies addressing adherence to anti-diabetic medications in patients with type 2 diabetes met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed. Each study was assessed for research design, method(s) used for measuring medication adherence, and impact of intervention on medication adherence and glycaemic control. Fourteen studies were published in 2000-2009 and 38 in 2010-2013. Twenty two interventions led to improvements in adherence to anti-diabetic medications, while only nine improved both medication adherence and glycaemic control. A single strategy could not be identified which would be guaranteed to improve anti-diabetic medication adherence consistently. Nonetheless, most interventions were successful in influencing one or more of the outcomes assessed, indicating the usefulness of these interventions under certain circumstances. Self-report, particularly the Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities questionnaire was the most commonly used tool to assess medication adherence, although other self-report tools were used in more recent studies. Overall, there was a slight increase in the number of studies that employed multiple methods to assess medication adherence in studies conducted after 2008.ConclusionThe diversity of interventions and adherence measurements prevented a meta-analysis of the impact of interventions on adherence to therapy, highlighting the need for more consistency in methods in the area of adherence research. Whilst effective interventions were identified, it is not possible to conclude on an effective intervention that can be generalised to all patients with type 2 diabetes.

Project description:ImportanceUnderstanding cardiovascular outcomes of initiating second-line antidiabetic medications (ADMs) may help inform treatment decisions after metformin alone is not sufficient or not tolerated. To date, no studies have compared the cardiovascular effects of all major second-line ADMs during this early decision point in the pharmacologic management of type 2 diabetes.ObjectiveTo examine the association of second-line ADM classes with major adverse cardiovascular events.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective cohort study among 132 737 insured adults with type 2 diabetes who started therapy with a second-line ADM after taking either metformin alone or no prior ADM. This study used 2011-2015 US nationwide administrative claims data. Data analysis was performed from January 2017 to October 2018.ExposuresDipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors, thiazolidinediones (TZDs), basal insulin, and sulfonylureas or meglitinides (both referred to as sulfonylureas hereafter). The DPP-4 inhibitors served as the comparison group in all analyses.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was time to first cardiovascular event after starting the second-line ADM. This composite outcome was based on hospitalization for the following cardiovascular conditions: congestive heart failure, stroke, ischemic heart disease, or peripheral artery disease.ResultsAmong 132 737 insured adult patients with type 2 diabetes (men, 55%; aged 45-64 years, 58%; white, 63%), there were 3480 incident cardiovascular events during 169 384 person-years of follow-up. Patients were censored after the first cardiovascular event, discontinuation of insurance coverage, transition from International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) to end of ICD-9 coding, or 2 years of follow-up. After adjusting for patient, prescriber, and health plan characteristics, the risk of composite cardiovascular events after starting GLP-1 receptor agonists was lower than DPP-4 inhibitors (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63-0.96), but this finding was not significant in all sensitivity analyses. Cardiovascular event rates after starting treatment with SGLT-2 inhibitors (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.57-1.53) and TZDs (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.76-1.11) were not statistically different from DPP-4 inhibitors. The comparative risk of cardiovascular events was higher after starting treatment with sulfonylureas (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.23-1.49) or basal insulin (HR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.81-2.27) than DPP-4 inhibitors.Conclusions and relevanceAmong insured adult patients with type 2 diabetes initiating second-line ADM therapy, the short-term cardiovascular outcomes of GLP-1 receptor agonists, SGLT-2 inhibitors, and DPP-4 inhibitors were similar. Higher cardiovascular risk was associated with use of sulfonylureas or basal insulin compared with newer ADM classes. Clinicians may consider prescribing GLP-1 receptor agonists, SGLT-2 inhibitors, or DPP-4 inhibitors more routinely after metformin rather than sulfonylureas or basal insulin.

Dataset Information

Adherence to Newly Prescribed Diabetes Medications Among Insured Latino and White Patients With Diabetes.

Publications

Adherence to Newly Prescribed Diabetes Medications Among Insured Latino and White Patients With Diabetes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets