Recall accuracy for prescription medications: self-report compared with database information.

Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 27599, USA.
American Journal of Epidemiology (Impact Factor: 4.98). 12/1995; 142(10):1103-12.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT A methodological study was performed in 1992 to evaluate the accuracy of self-reported use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and noncontraceptive estrogens that had been dispensed during the previous 12 years. A sample of 560 individuals dispensed NSAIDs or estrogens, and 140 individuals without NSAID/estrogen dispensations were selected from the Group Health Cooperative pharmacy database. Demographic, behavioral, and drug information was ascertained by telephone interview for 356 persons with and 98 persons without NSAID/estrogen dispensations. Of those with only a single NSAID dispensation, 41% (95% confidence interval (CI) 32-50%) were able to recall any NSAID use compared with 85% (95% CI 76-94%) for those with multiple NSAID dispensations. Thirty percent (95% CI 24-36%) recalled the NSAID name, and 15% (95% CI 10-20%) recalled both the name and dose. For estrogens, 78% (95% CI 70-86%) recalled the name, but only 26% (95% CI 17-34%) recalled the name and dose. Age, but not sex, appeared to influence recall accuracy: Persons 50-65 years of age recalled the NSAID name more accurately than those aged 66-80 (odds ratio (OR) = 1.8, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0-3.4). A similar advantage was noted for 50- to 65-year-old women in recalling the estrogen name (OR = 1.5, 95% CI 0.6-3.9). Drug name was recalled more frequently for exposures stopped 2-3 years prior to interview than for those stopped 7-11 years prior (OR = 3.0, 95% CI 1.6-5.7, and OR = 2.4, 95% CI 0.9-6.7, for NSAIDs and estrogens, respectively). Specificity was consistently high, ranging from 92% to 100%. This study suggests significant underascertainment of self-reported prescription drug exposure but little evidence that exposures are overreported.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Clinical trials have shown that evidence-based secondary prevention medications reduce mortality after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Yet, these medications are generally underused in daily practice, and older people are often excluded from drug trials. The purpose of this study was to examine whether the relationship between adherence to evidence-based drugs and post-AMI mortality varies with increasing age. The study population was defined as all residents in the Local Health Authority of Bologna (Italy) hospitalized for AMI between January 1, 2008 and June 30, 2011, and followed up until December 31, 2012. Medication adherence was calculated as the proportion of days covered (PDC) for filled prescriptions of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, β-blockers, antiplatelet drugs, and statins; patients were classified as adherent (PDC ≥75 %) or nonadherent (PDC <75 %). We used incidence density sampling, and the moderating effect of age on the relationship between adherence and mortality was investigated through conditional multiple logistic regression analysis. The study population comprised 3963 patients. During the 5-year study period, 1085 deaths (27.4 %) were observed. For both younger and older patients, adherence to polytherapy (three or four medications) was associated with lower mortality (adj. rate ratio = 0.41; P < 0.001). A significant inverse relationship was found between adherence to each of the four medications and mortality, although the risk reduction associated with antiplatelet therapy declined after the age of 70-75. The beneficial effect of evidence-based polytherapy on mortality following AMI is observed also in older populations. Nevertheless, the risk-benefit ratio associated with antiplatelet therapy is less favorable with increasing age.
    European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 12/2014; 71(2). DOI:10.1007/s00228-014-1793-8 · 2.70 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A growing body of observational literature on the association between glucose-lowering treatments and all-cause mortality has been accumulating in recent years. However, many investigations present designs or analyses that inadequately address the methodological challenges involved. We conducted a systematic search with a non-systematic extension to identify observational studies published between 2000 and 2012 that evaluated the effects of glucose-lowering medications on all-cause mortality. We reviewed these studies and assessed the design and analysis methods used, with a focus on their ability to address specific methodological challenges. We described these methodological issues and their potential impact on observed associations, providing examples from the reviewed literature, and suggested possible approaches to manage these methodological challenges. We evaluated 67 publications of observational studies evaluating the association between glucose-lowering treatments and all-cause mortality. The identified methodological challenges included trade-offs associated with the outcome of all-cause mortality, incorrect temporal sequencing in administrative databases, inadequate treatment of time-varying hazards and treatment duration effects, unclear definition of the exposure risk window, improper handling of time-varying exposures, and incomplete accounting for confounding by indication. Most of these methodological challenges may be adequately addressed through the application of appropriate methods. Observational research plays an increasingly important role in assessing the clinical effects of diabetes therapy. The implementation of suitable research methods can reduce the potential for spurious findings, and thus the risk of misleading the medical community about benefits and harms of diabetes therapy.
    Drug Safety 03/2015; 38(3). DOI:10.1007/s40264-015-0280-1 · 2.62 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The study aims were to investigate secular trends in antiepileptic drug (AED) use in women during pregnancy, and to compare the use of first- and second-generation AEDs. Study participants consisted of female Florida Medicaid beneficiaries, older than 15 years, and pregnant within the time period 1999 to 2009. Fifteen AEDs were categorized into first and second generation of AEDs. Continuous use of AEDs was defined as at least 2 consecutive AED prescriptions totaling more than a 30-day supply. Polytherapy was defined as 2 or more AEDs continuously used for at least 30 overlapping days. Annual prevalence was estimated and compared. We included 2,099 pregnant women who were enrolled in Florida Medicaid from 1999 to 2009 and exposed to AEDs during pregnancy. Although there were fluctuations, overall AED use in the study cohort did not increase from 2000 to 2009 (β ± standard error [SE]: -0.07 ± 0.06, p = 0.31). The use of first-generation AEDs decreased (β ± SE: -6.21 ± 0.47, p < 0.0001), whereas the use of second-generation AEDs increased (β ± SE: 6.27 ± 0.52, p < 0.0001) from 2000 to 2009. AED use in polytherapy did not change through the study period. Valproate use reduced from 23% to 8% in the study population (β ± SE: -1.61 ± 0.36, p = 0.0019), but this decrease was only for women receiving an AED for epilepsy and was not present for other indications. The second-generation AEDs are replacing first-generation AEDs in both monotherapy and polytherapy. Valproate use has declined for epilepsy but not other indications. Additional changes in AED use are expected in future years. © 2015 American Academy of Neurology.
    Neurology 02/2015; 84(9). DOI:10.1212/WNL.0000000000001304 · 8.30 Impact Factor