Self-reported information and pharmacy claims were comparable for lipid-lowering medication exposure

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, USA.
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (Impact Factor: 5.48). 06/2007; 60(5):525-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.08.007
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To examine agreement between self-reported exposure to lipid-lowering medications and objective evidence of filling prescribed lipid-lowering medications.
Using data from 7,918 adults from the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and positive (PV+) and negative (PV-) predictive values, and likelihood ratios for self-reported exposure to lipid-lowering medications compared to exposure obtained from pharmacy claims (gold standard) both overall and by age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, and ACE Score.
Eight percent (n=655) of adults self-reported lipid-lowering medication exposure, and 379 adults filled at least one lipid-lowering prescription within 60 days of the baseline exam during 1997. The sensitivity of self-reported exposure was nearly 94%; the specificity was 96%; the PV+ was 54%; and the PV- was nearly 100%. Values for sensitivity, specificity, PV+, and PV- were similar across participant characteristics.
A self-reported measure of lipid-lowering medication exposure was accurate with high sensitivity and specificity while the PV+ of self-reported lipid-lowering medication exposure was relatively low. These findings suggest that self-reported exposure to lipid-lowering medications may be useful in surveys that examine the prevalence of hyperlipidemia, but may overestimate actual exposure in studies monitoring trends in use of lipid-lowering medications.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objective of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of liraglutide with sitagliptin and assess the associated economic outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treated in real-world practice in the United States (US).
    09/2014; 5(2). DOI:10.1007/s13300-014-0084-9
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: While the liraglutide effect and action in diabetes (LEAD-6) clinical trial compared the efficacy and safety of liraglutide once daily (LIRA) to exenatide twice daily (EXEN) in adult patients with type 2 diabetes, few studies have explored the associated per-patient costs of glycemic goal achievement of their use in a real-world clinical setting. This retrospective cohort study used integrated medical and pharmacy claims linked with glycated hemoglobin A1C (A1C) results from the IMS Patient-Centric Integrated Data Warehouse. Patients' ≥18 years and naïve to incretin therapies during a 6-month pre-index period, with ≥1 prescription for LIRA or EXEN between January 2010 and December 2010, were included. Patients with evidence of insulin use (pre- or post-index) were excluded. Only patients who were persistent on their index treatment during a 180-day post-index period were included. Follow-up A1C assessments were based on available laboratory data within 45 days before or after the 6-month post-index point in time. Diabetes-related pharmacy costs over the 6-month post-index period were captured and included costs for both the index drugs and concomitant diabetes medications. 234 LIRA and 182 EXEN patients were identified for the analysis. The adjusted predicted diabetes-related pharmacy costs per patient over the 6-month post-index period were higher for LIRA compared to EXEN ($2,002 [95% confidence interval (CI): $1,981, $2,023] vs. $1,799 [95% CI: $1,778, $1,820]; P < 0.001). However, a higher adjusted predicted percentage of patients on LIRA reached A1C < 7% goal (64.4% [95% CI: 63.5, 65.3] vs. 53.6% [95% CI: 52.6, 54.6]; P < 0.05), translating into lower average diabetes-related pharmacy costs per successfully treated patient for LIRA as compared to EXEN ($3,108 vs. $3,354; P < 0.0001). Although predicted diabetes-related pharmacy costs were greater with LIRA vs. EXEN, a higher proportion of patients on LIRA achieved A1C < 7%, resulting in a lower per-patient cost of A1C goal achievement with LIRA compared to EXEN.
    Advances in Therapy 01/2014; 31(2). DOI:10.1007/s12325-014-0098-8 · 2.44 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Medical records that do not accurately reflect the patient's current medication list are an open invitation to errors and may compromise patient safety. METHODS: This cross-sectional study compares primary care provider (PCP) medication lists and pharmacy claims for 100 patients seen in 8 primary care practices and examines the association of congruence with demographic, clinical, and practice characteristics. Medication list congruence was measured as agreement of pharmacy claims with the entire PCP chart, including current medication list, visit notes, and correspondence sections. RESULTS: Congruence between pharmacy claims and the PCP chart was 65%. Congruence was associated with large chronic disease burden, frequent PCP visits, group practice, and patient age [greater than or equal to]45 years. CONCLUSION: Agreement of medication lists between the PCP chart and pharmacy records is low. Medication documentation was more accurate among patients who have more chronic conditions, those who have frequent PCP visits, those whose practice has multiple providers, and those at least 45 years of age. Improved congruence among patients with multiple chronic conditions and in group practices may reflect more frequent visits and reviews by providers.
    BMC Family Practice 08/2012; 13(1):83. DOI:10.1186/1471-2296-13-83 · 1.74 Impact Factor


Available from
Dec 24, 2014