Comparison of claims vs patient-reported adherence measures and associated outcomes among patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation using oral anticoagulant therapy
Authors Stephenson JJ, Shinde MU, Kwong WJ, Fu A, Tan H, Weintraub WS
Received 10 August 2017
Accepted for publication 22 November 2017
Published 12 January 2018 Volume 2018:12 Pages 105—117
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single anonymous peer review
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Dr Johnny Chen
Judith J Stephenson,1 Mayura U Shinde,1 Winghan Jacqueline Kwong,2 An-Chen Fu,1 Hiangkiat Tan,1 William S Weintraub3
1HealthCore, Inc., Wilmington, DE, 2Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., Basking Ridge, NJ, 3Christiana Care Health System, Newark, DE, USA
Objective: To compare oral anticoagulant (OAC) adherence among patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) using patient-reported and claims-based measures, and to evaluate the effect of OAC adherence on health care costs and patient satisfaction with OAC therapy.
Methods: This was a hybrid US observational study consisting of a longitudinal cohort survey followed by linkage and analysis of respondents’ administrative claims data. Patients with NVAF receiving warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or apixaban completed an initial survey and follow-up surveys at 4, 8, and 12 months. Patient-reported adherence was measured at each survey by Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8) and pharmacy claims-determined adherence by the proportion of days covered (PDC) for the 12-month period following the initial survey date; adherence was defined as MMAS-8 score =8 and PDC ≥80%. Patient satisfaction with OAC therapy was assessed by the Duke Anticoagulation Satisfaction Scale (DASS).
Results: Overall, 675 patients completed at least the initial survey (warfarin, n=271; dabigatran, n=266; rivaroxaban, n=128; apixaban, n=10). Fewer than half (47.9%) were PDC adherent, 37.2% were MMAS-8 adherent, and 19.4% were adherent by both measures. Total medical costs of PDC-adherent patients were significantly lower vs PDC-nonadherent patients (US$640 vs $993 per-patient per-month, respectively, p<0.05). MMAS-8-adherent patients reported higher treatment satisfaction; total DASS score was significantly lower among MMAS-8-adherent than MMAS-8-nonadherent patients (37.3 vs 42.9, respectively, p<0.001).
Conclusion: Using claims-based or patient-reported methods to measure OAC adherence may lead to different results when assessing impact on health care costs and satisfaction with anticoagulation medication. These results underscore the importance of considering both claims-based and patient-reported measures when evaluating treatment adherence in real-world settings.
Keywords: adherence, atrial fibrillation, OAC, health care costs
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]