Search

Purpose: Medication nonadherence is a significant and multidimensional problem contributing to an increased risk of morbidity and mortality. Inconveniences in pharmacy and home contexts may increase nonadherence. This research examined inconveniences in pharmacy and home contexts associated with self-reported nonadherence, controlling for demographic and medication-taking covariates. Methods: Data from 4682 individuals who reported self-managing medications in an online marketing survey between October and December 2017 were analyzed in this secondary analysis. Nonadherence was dichotomized using a single question about likelihood to take medications as prescribed (adherence=always; nonadherence=most of the time, some of the time, never). Multivariable logistic regression with backwards elimination was used to examine the pharmacy (use of home delivery, number prescriptions picked up and visits to pharmacy) and home context (method used to organize/manage medications, satisfaction, and bother with management) variables and the demographic (age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, income, insurance) and medication (number of oral medications, medication changes and frequency of taking) covariates associated with nonadherence. Results: Overall, 25.8% of the responses indicated nonadherence. Nonadherence was more likely for individuals making fewer separate pharmacy trips (OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.97– 0.99); picking up fewer prescriptions (OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.93– 0.99); never, rarely or sometimes using mail order compared with always (OR 1.71; 95% CI 1.30– 2.26); not satisfied with managing medications (OR 2.13; 95% CI 1.42– 3.19); and using pill pouches and being bothered by them (OR 8.28; 95% CI 1.83– 37.31). Using pill pouches or a pillbox and not being bothered by them significantly decreased nonadherence likelihood. Younger and female respondents and those reporting medication changes in the last year were also more likely to report nonadherence. Conclusion: Though reasons for nonadherence are multidimensional, this study suggests that inconveniences in both the pharmacy and home context are important. Improving adherence requires addressing issues of inconvenience across the care continuum. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the clinical and economic impact of adopting noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) using circulating cell-free DNA as a first-line screening method for trisomy 21, 18, and 13 in the general pregnancy population.Methods: A decision-analytical model was developed to assess the impact of adopting NIPT as a primary screening test compared to conventional screening methods. The model takes the Belgium perspective and includes only the direct medical cost of screening, diagnosis, and procedure-related complications. NIPT costs are EUR 260. Clinical outcomes and the cost per trisomy detected were assessed. Sensitivity analysis measured the impact of NIPT false-positive rate (FPR) on modelled results.Results: The cost per trisomy detected was EUR 63,016 for conventional screening versus EUR 66,633 for NIPT, with a difference of EUR 3,617. NIPT reduced unnecessary invasive tests by 94.8%, decreased procedure-related miscarriages by 90.8%, and increased trisomies detected by 29.1%. Increasing the FPR of NIPT (from < 0.01 to 1.0%) increased the average number of invasive procedures required to diagnose a trisomy from 2.2 to 4.5, respectively.Conclusion: NIPT first-line screening at a reasonable cost is cost-effective and provides better clinical outcomes. However, modelled results are dependent on the adoption of an NIPT with a low FPR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study assessed the clinical and budgetary impacts of human papillomavirus (HPV) primary screening with HPV16/18 genotyping, in contrast to current cervical cancer screening strategies., Study Design: A decision-tree framework and Markov model were used to model clinical and cost implications of screening and diagnosis of disease., Methods: A model was developed to compare the annual clinical and budgetary impact of HPV screening with genotyping versus cytology, and co-testing with and without genotyping. Epidemiology and test performance inputs are from the literature and the Addressing THE Need for Advanced HPV Diagnostics (ATHENA) trial. Costs are from a US payer perspective. Clinical impact was measured as the resulting incidence of cervical cancer, and budget impact is reported as annual cost per screened woman. The model considered the impact of patient noncompliance (loss to follow-up) at both the initial screen and re-test., Results: Cytology was found to be inferior to both co-testing and HPV primary screening. Co-testing was inferior to co-testing with genotyping. Co-testing with genotyping every 3 years (incidence = 5.5 per 100,000 women; annual investment = $61) or 5 years (incidence = 7.4 per 100,000 women; annual investment = $37) was slightly more effective, but more costly than HPV primary screening every 3 years (incidence = 6.2 per 100,000 women; annual investment = $48) or 5 years (incidence = 8.1 per 100,000 women; annual investment = $30). Genotyping strategies were relatively stable to the effects of patient noncompliance., Conclusions: Primary HPV screening with genotyping represents a sensible combination of clinical effectiveness and costs, while reducing the risks associated with patient noncompliance.