Key result
Claims-based OAC adherence was associated with lower total medical costs ($640 vs $993 per month, p<0.05), whereas patient-reported adherence was associated with better treatment satisfaction.
Why the study?
Does adherence to oral anticoagulants affect health care costs and patient satisfaction in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation?
Observational (n=675)
Does adherence to oral anticoagulants affect health care costs and patient satisfaction in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation?
Absolute Event Rate: 640% vs 993%
p-value: p=<0.05
Claims-based and patient-reported measures of oral anticoagulant adherence capture different aspects of adherence, with claims-based adherence associating with lower healthcare costs and patient-reported adherence associating with higher treatment satisfaction.
Adherence measures in NVAF show variable concordance; leaves open optimal method for predicting costs and satisfaction.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stephenson et al. (2018) conducted an observational in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (n=675). Oral anticoagulant adherence vs. Nonadherence was evaluated on Total medical costs (per-patient per-month) (p=<0.05). Claims-based OAC adherence was associated with lower total medical costs ($640 vs $993 per month, p<0.05), whereas patient-reported adherence was associated with better treatment satisfaction.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: