Manjiri Pawaskar

Eli Lilly, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States

Are you Manjiri Pawaskar?

Claim your profile

Publications (41)100.67 Total impact

  • Manjiri Pawaskar · Katherine R Tuttle · Qian Li · Jennie H Best · Pamela W Anderson ·
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Kidney disease is common among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Treatment of diabetes seeks to minimize negative kidney impact. To assess the changes in kidney function and incidence of albuminuria in patients with T2DM treated for 1 year with exenatide twice daily (BID) or insulin glargine. Retrospective analyses were performed using an electronic medical record database. Patients inititating treatment with either exenatide BID or insulin glargine between November 2006, and April 2009 comprised the study cohort. The 2 groups were 1:1 propensity score matched on baseline variables yielding 2683 pairs. Measures of kidney function included estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR,) and urinary albumin/creatinine ratio (UACR). Mean baseline eGFR was identical between the groups (79 ± 23 mL/min/1.73 m(2)). At 1-year follow-up, there was no significant difference in mean eGFR between the groups (78 mL/min/1.73 m(2) for exenatide BID vs 80 mL/min/1.73 m(2) for insulin glargine; P = .39). Despite matching of multiple characteristics, mean baseline UACR was lower in the exenatide BID group (mean = 34 ± 71 mg/g) compared with the insulin glargine group (183 ± 509 mg/g; P = .03). At follow-up, exenatide BID patients had a mean increase in UACR of 104 mg/g, insulin glargine patients had a decrease of 47 mg/g, but the difference was not significant (P = .19). There were no significant differences in change in kidney function or albuminuria at 1 year in patients treated with exenatide BID compared with insulin glargine as administered in routine practice.
    Annals of Pharmacotherapy 02/2014; 48(5). DOI:10.1177/1060028013520597 · 2.06 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Type 2 diabetes is a common and costly illness, associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Despite this, there is relatively little information on the 'real-world' medication utilization patterns for patients with type 2 diabetes initiating exenatide BID or glargine. The objective of this study was to evaluate the 'real-world' medication utilization patterns in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with exenatide BID (exenatide) versus insulin glargine (glargine). Adult patients( >=18 years of age) with type 2 diabetes who were new initiators of exenatide or glargine from October 1, 2006 through March 31, 2008 with continuous enrollment for the 12 months pre- and 18 months post-index period were selected from the MarketScan(R) Commercial and Medicare Databases. To control for selection bias, propensity score matching was used to complete a 1:1 match of glargine to exenatide patients. Key study outcomes (including the likelihood of overall treatment modification, discontinuation, switching, or intensification) were analyzed using survival analysis. A total of 9,197 exenatide- and 4,499 glargine-treated patients were selected. Propensity score matching resulted in 3,774 matched pairs with a mean age of 57 years and a mean Deyo Charlson Comorbidity Index score of 1.6; 54% of patients were males. The 18-month treatment intensification rates were 15.9% and 26.0% (p < 0.0001) and the discontinuation rates were 38.3% and 40.0% (p = 0.14) for exenatide and glargine, respectively. Alternatively, 14.9% of exenatide-treated patients switched therapies, compared to 10.0% of glargine-treated patients (p < 0.0001). Overall, glargine-treated patients were more likely to modify their treatment [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.33, p < 0.0001] with shorter mean time on treatment until modification (123 vs. 159 days, p < 0.0001). Compared to exenatide-treated patients, glargine-treated patients were more likely to discontinue [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.25, p < 0.0001] or intensify therapy (HR = 1.72, p < 0.0001) but less likely to switch (HR = 0.71, p < 0.0001) the index therapy. Patients treated for type 2 diabetes with exenatide BID or insulin glargine differ in their adherence to therapy. Exenatide-treated patients were less likely to discontinue or modify treatment but more likely to switch therapy compared to glargine-treated patients.
    BMC Endocrine Disorders 06/2013; 13(1):20. DOI:10.1186/1472-6823-13-20 · 1.71 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The quantitative assessment of the potential influence of unmeasured confounders in the analysis of observational data is rare, despite reliance on the "no unmeasured confounders" assumption. In a recent comparison of costs of care between two treatments for type 2 diabetes using a health care claims database, propensity score matching was implemented to adjust for selection bias though it was noted that information on baseline glycemic control was not available for the propensity model. Using data from a linked laboratory file, data on this potential "unmeasured confounder" were obtained for a small subset of the original sample. By using this information, we demonstrate how Bayesian modeling, propensity score calibration, and multiple imputation can utilize this additional information to perform sensitivity analyses to quantitatively assess the potential impact of unmeasured confounding. Bayesian regression models were developed to utilize the internal validation data as informative prior distributions for all parameters, retaining information on the correlation between the confounder and other covariates. While assumptions supporting the use of propensity score calibration were not met in this sample, the use of Bayesian modeling and multiple imputation provided consistent results, suggesting that the lack of data on the unmeasured confounder did not have a strong impact on the original analysis, due to the lack of strong correlation between the confounder and the cost outcome variable. Bayesian modeling with informative priors and multiple imputation may be useful tools for unmeasured confounding sensitivity analysis in these situations. Further research to understand the operating characteristics of these methods in a variety of situations, however, remains.
    Value in Health 03/2013; 16(2):259-66. DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2012.10.012 · 3.28 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: To examine the clinical effectiveness of concomitant therapy of exenatide twice daily and basal insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the United States.Methods: Data from adults with type 2 diabetes were selected from an electronic medical record database. Concomitant therapy was defined as a basal insulin prescription within 6 months before or after an exenatide prescription between May 2005 and April 2009. Upon initiation, patients were treated with both medications. Clinical effectiveness was measured as mean changes in hemoglobin A1c (primary outcome), body weight, body mass index, blood pressure, and lipid values from a 6-month baseline to mean-adjusted values in a 12-month follow-up period. These changes were assessed by a bootstrapping test.Results: There were 1752 patients (mean age, 57 years) who initiated concomitant therapy (75% added exenatide to basal insulin, 25% added basal insulin to exenatide). Patients achieved significant mean reductions in hemoglobin A1c (0.5%), body weight (1.8 kg), body mass index (0.6 kg/m2), diastolic blood pressure (0.5 mm Hg), and various lipid measures (all P<.05). Hemoglobin A1c reduction was consistent irrespective of the treatment order. However, body weight, body mass index, and blood pressure reductions were observed in only patients who added exenatide to basal insulin.Conclusions: Overall, exenatide and basal insulin concomitant therapy was associated with significant reductions in hemoglobin A1c, body weight, body mass index, diastolic blood pressure, and lipids in a large, diverse patient population treated in ambulatory care settings in the United States. In the subgroup analysis, body weight, body mass index, and diastolic blood pressure reductions were observed in only patients who added exenatide to basal insulin.
    Endocrine Practice 09/2012; 18(5):700-11. DOI:10.4158/EP11367.OR · 2.81 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Sujit S Sansgiry · Manjiri D Pawaskar · Prajakta Bhounsule ·
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Little is known regarding consumption of over-the-counter (OTC) medications by the blind. They may face difficulty while accessing information from OTC medication labels. This exploratory, cross-sectional study was designed to determine blind consumers' attitude and purchase behavior towards OTC medications and use of low-vision tools while using these medications.
    Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 08/2012; 23(3):1048-57. DOI:10.1353/hpu.2012.0095 · 1.10 Impact Factor
  • Source
    E.M. Pelletier · M. Pawaskar · R. Chapman ·

    Value in Health 06/2012; 15(4):A179-A180. DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2012.03.972 · 3.28 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Objective: The safety and efficacy of the GLP-1 receptor agonists exenatide BID (exenatide) and liraglutide for treating type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have been established in clinical trials. Effective treatments may lower overall treatment costs. This study examined cost offsets and medication adherence for exenatide vs liraglutide in a large, managed care population in the US. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort analysis comprising adult patients with T2DM who initiated exenatide or liraglutide between 1/1/2010 and 6/30/2010 and had 6 months pre-index and post-index continuous eligibility. Patients were propensity score-matched to controls for baseline differences. Medication adherence was measured by proportion of days covered (PDC). Paired t-test and McNemar's test were used to compare outcomes. Results: Matched exenatide and liraglutide cohorts (n = 1347 pairs) had similar average total 6-month follow-up costs ($6688 vs $7346). However, exenatide patients had significantly lower mean pharmacy costs ($2925 vs $3272, p < 0.001). Among liraglutide patients, patients receiving the 1.8 mg dose had significantly higher average total costs compared to those receiving the 1.2 mg dose ($8031 vs $6536, p = 0.026), with higher mean pharmacy costs in the 1.8 mg cohort ($3935 vs $3146, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in inpatient or outpatient costs or medication adherence between groups (mean PDC: exenatide 56% vs liraglutide 57%, p = 0.088). Limitations: The study assumed that all information needed for case classification and matching of cohorts was present and not differential across cohorts. The study did not control for covariates that were unavailable, such as HbA1c and duration of diabetes. Conclusions: Patients initiating exenatide vs liraglutide for T2DM had similar medication adherence and total healthcare costs; however, exenatide patients had significantly lower total pharmacy costs. Patients prescribed 1.8 mg liraglutide had significantly higher costs compared to those on 1.2 mg.
    Journal of Medical Economics 04/2012; 15(6). DOI:10.3111/13696998.2012.688903 · 1.58 Impact Factor
  • Manjiri Pawaskar · Qian Li · Matthew W Reynolds ·
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The safety and efficacy of exenatide BID (exenatide) and insulin glargine (glargine) have been studied in clinical trials with few elderly patients. This study examined the clinical effectiveness of exenatide compared to glargine in patients 65 years and older with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). A retrospective analysis was conducted using the General Electric electronic medical record database. Patients aged 65 years and older with T2DM who initiated exenatide or glargine were identified between November 1, 2006 and April 30, 2009 with 12 months of pre- and post-index continuous eligibility. Propensity-score matching (1:1) was used to balance baseline differences between the cohorts. The effectiveness endpoints were changes in A1C (primary endpoint), weight, body mass index (BMI), and blood pressure (BP). Matched cohorts were compared using paired t tests and nonparametric tests as appropriate. The matched exenatide and glargine patients (n = 804 each) were comparable in their baseline characteristics, including age (70 vs. 71 years), and male sex (44.9% vs. 45.2%). In the 12-month follow-up, exenatide patients experienced significantly greater mean reductions in A1C (-0.5 vs. -0.2%), weight (-2.8 vs. -0.2 kg), BMI (-1.0 vs. -0.1 kg/m(2)), and systolic BP (-2.2 vs. 1.0 mmHg) (all: P < 0.05). More exenatide-treated patients reached the A1C goal of <7% (53.9% vs. 43.0%, P < 0.01). Diastolic BP was similar between the cohorts. Unmeasured confounding bias may still exist and thus findings should be interpreted as associations instead of causations. Due to incomplete data, adverse events and medication use were not examined. Exenatide was associated with significant improvement in A1C, weight, BMI and BP compared to glargine for management of T2DM in an elderly patient population treated in ambulatory care settings.
    Current Medical Research and Opinion 04/2012; 28(6):991-7. DOI:10.1185/03007995.2012.686901 · 2.65 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectif Cette étude examine en pratique courante, lors de soins ambulatoires, les résultats cliniques de l’exénatide comparée à l’insuline glargine chez les patients diabétiques de type 2. Patients et méthodes Analyse rétrospective réalisée à partir de la base de donnée médicale de la General Electric sur deux cohortes, (exénatide n = 4494, insuline glargine n = 5 424), appariées sur des scores de propension (critères démographiques, cliniques et utilisation de soins,). Comparaison des cohortes appariées (n appariés = 2 683) avec test t appariés ou tests non paramétriques sur les critères d’évaluation suivants : variations d’HbA1c (critère principal), poids, IMC, PA, taux lipidiques, et nombre d’hypoglycémies. Résultats Cohortes exénatide et insuline glargine appariées comparables sur l’âge (58 vs 58 ans), le sexe (femmes 55% vs 53%), et les caractéristiques cliniques à l’inclusion. Durant les 12 mois de suivi, la cohorte exénatide obtenait une réduction significative plus importante (moyenne ± SD) de l’HbA1c, (- 0,66% [± 1,5] vs - 0,41% [± 1,7], p < 0,01), du poids (-2,6 [± 6,8] vs - 0,2 [± 9,2] kg, P < 0,01), de l’IMC (- 0,9 [± 2,6] vs - 0,1 [± 2,7] kg/m2, p < 0,01), et de la PA systolique (- 1,8 [± 17] vs - 0,3 [± 18] mmHg, p < 0,01). Plus de patients atteignaient une HbA1c < 7% sous exénatide (46% vs 36%, P < 0,01). Aucune différence cliniquement significative entre les cohortes n’a été observée pour la PA diastolique, les taux lipidiques, et le nombre d’hypoglycémies. Conclusion Les patients traités par exénatide ont eu une réduction significativement plus importante de l’HbA1c, du poids, de l’IMC et de la PA systolique que les patients sous insuline glargine. Ces résultats montrent l’efficacité clinique en pratique courante de l’exénatide par rapport à l’insuline glargine au sein d’une cohorte importante et diversifiée, dans le cadre de soins ambulatoires.
    Diabetes & Metabolism 03/2012; 38:A24. DOI:10.1016/S1262-3636(12)71074-1 · 3.27 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This observational study evaluated the clinical effectiveness of exenatide BID (exenatide) vs. insulin glargine (glargine) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in ambulatory clinical practice. Retrospective analyses were conducted using an electronic medical record (EMR) database among adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus initiating exenatide or glargine between 1 November 2006 and 30 April 2009. The cohorts were propensity-score matched to control baseline demographics, clinical measures, health status and medication use. The changes from baseline to a 12-month follow-up period for A1C (primary outcome), weight, body mass index (BMI), blood pressure and lipid levels were compared between the matched cohorts using paired tests. Propensity-score matching between the exenatide (n = 4494) and glargine (n = 5424) cohorts led to 2683 matched pairs with comparable characteristics, including age, gender and baseline clinical values. The exenatide cohort achieved a greater mean reduction in A1C (-0.6% vs. -0.4%, p < 0.01), weight (-2.6 kg vs. -0.2 kg, p < 0.01), BMI (-0.8 kg/m(2) vs. -0.04 kg/m(2) , p < 0.01) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) (-1.8 mmHg vs. -0.1 mmHg, p < 0.01) in the follow-up period. The changes in diastolic blood pressure and lipid levels were not significantly different between cohorts. Compared to glargine, exenatide-treated patients experienced significant reductions in A1C, weight, BMI and SBP. Acknowledging the limitations of observational research, exenatide showed greater clinical effectiveness than glargine from a large EMR database in the ambulatory care setting.
    Diabetes Obesity and Metabolism 02/2012; 14(7):626-33. DOI:10.1111/j.1463-1326.2012.01581.x · 6.36 Impact Factor
  • Source

    Value in Health 11/2011; 14(7). DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2011.08.1325 · 3.28 Impact Factor
  • Manjiri D Pawaskar · Amy L Blickensderfer · Byron J Hoogwerf · Ralph Quimbo · Rolin Wade ·
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objective of this study was to examine the frequency of hypoglycemia among patients with type 2 diabetes who had concomitantly used exenatide BID (exenatide) and long-acting insulin and continued this combination vs those who continued long-acting insulin alone. Retrospective analyses, using a large managed care database, were used to estimate the frequency of hypoglycemia (episodes/patient/6 months) for patients who concomitantly used exenatide and long-acting insulin during a 6-month follow-up period. From among 2082 patients on concomitant exenatide and long-acting insulin, those who continued this combination (n=472) had a lower frequency of hypoglycemia compared to those who remained on long-acting insulin alone (n=312) (0.03 ± 1.9 vs 0.10 ± 1.01 [episodes/patient/6 months]; p<0.0001). Only hypoglycemia that required medical intervention (coded for hypoglycemia) was captured. The study could not evaluate any association between insulin dose titration and hypoglycemia or examine other outcomes such as HbA1c, weight, and body mass index, due to lack of data availability. Patients who concomitantly used exenatide BID and long-acting insulin experienced a lower rate of hypoglycemia.
    Journal of Medical Economics 09/2011; 14(6):705-8. DOI:10.3111/13696998.2011.613505 · 1.58 Impact Factor
  • Source
    M. Pawaskar · M. Bonafede · B. H. Johnson · R. Fowler · B. J. Hoogwerf ·

    Value in Health 05/2011; 14(3). DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2011.02.531 · 3.28 Impact Factor
  • Manjiri Pawaskar · Anthony Zagar · Tomoko Sugihara · Lizheng Shi ·
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To examine resource utilization and healthcare costs associated with the use of exenatide versus glargine in type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients. A retrospective analysis comprised of patients with T2D initiating exenatide (n = 7,255) or glargine (n = 2,819) between 04/01/2005 and 06/30/2007. Propensity score matching was used (2,506 matched pairs) to control for baseline demographic, clinical, resource use, and cost variables to balance treatment groups. Mean medical costs and other cost components were estimated using nonparametric bootstrapping. Exenatide-treated patients had 19% lower likelihood of all-cause hospitalizations (odds ratio [OR]: 0.81, p = 0.009) compared to glargine-treated patients. Exenatide-treated patients had significantly lower total medical costs of $2,597 (p = 0.008). Exenatide-treated patients had significantly lower inpatient costs of $1,968 (p = 0.004) and outpatient costs of $1,324 (p = 0.011), but higher prescription costs of $706 (p < 0.001). Exenatide-treated patients further incurred lower hospitalization costs of $1,910 (p = 0.005) and physician office visit costs of $608 (p = 0.008). Key limitations: Lack of availability of clinical measures including duration of diabetes, severity of T2D and lack of control for unmeasured confounding. Patients initiating exenatide treatment had significantly lower healthcare resource utilization and total medical costs. Cost offsets were observed in inpatient and outpatient costs despite higher prescription costs.
    Journal of Medical Economics 02/2011; 14(1):16-27. DOI:10.3111/13696998.2010.544797 · 1.58 Impact Factor
  • Lauren J Lee · Qian Li · Matthew W Reynolds · Manjiri D Pawaskar · Sheila M Corrigan ·
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Studies examining outcomes of different insulin delivery systems are limited. The objective of this study was to compare healthcare utilization, costs, adherence, and hypoglycemia rates in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) initiating rapid-acting insulin analog (RAIA) using prefilled pen versus vial/syringe. A retrospective analysis was conducted using a US claims database (1/1/2007 to 12/31/2008). Inclusion criteria were: ≥18 years old, with T2DM, ≥12 months of continuous eligibility, and new to RAIA. Difference-in-difference analyses after propensity score matching were conducted to compare changes in outcomes from 6 months prior to and 6 months after initiating RAIA with a prefilled pen versus vial/syringe (Wilcoxon rank-sum test for costs and t-test for other outcomes). Categories of utilization and costs (2009 USD) included total and diabetes-related inpatient, outpatient, and emergency room. Adherence was measured by proportion of days covered (PDC). Hypoglycemia was identified using ICD-9-CM codes. Baseline characteristics were similar between the prefilled pen (n = 239) and vial/syringe (n = 590) cohorts after matching. Adherence to RAIA was greater in the prefilled pen cohort than the vial/syringe cohort (PDC: 54.6 vs. 45.2%, p < 0.001). While the increase in diabetes-related pharmacy costs from before to after initiating RAIA was greater in the prefilled pen cohort than the vial/syringe cohort (+$900 vs. +$607, p < 0.001), the prefilled pen cohort was associated with greater reductions in the total diabetes-related costs (-$235 vs. +$61, p = 0.006) and the utilization of oral anti-hyperglycemic agents (-1.3 vs. -0.7, p = 0.016). There were no significant differences in other outcomes. Claims databases do not provide optimal measures for adherence or T2DM severity, and only capture hypoglycemia events requiring clinical intervention. Initiating RAIA with a prefilled pen was associated with better adherence and greater reduction in total diabetes-related costs than a vial/syringe. There was no significant difference in total healthcare costs.
    Journal of Medical Economics 02/2011; 14(1):75-86. DOI:10.3111/13696998.2010.546466 · 1.58 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objective of this study was to characterize insulin use and examine factors associated with persistence to mealtime insulin among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) on stable basal insulin therapy initiating mealtime insulin therapy. Insulin use among patients with T2D initiating mealtime insulin was investigated using Thomson Reuters MarketScan® research databases from July 2001 through September 2006. The first mealtime insulin claim preceded by 6 months with 2 claims for basal insulin was used as the index event. A total of 21 months of continuous health plan enrollment was required. Patients were required to have a second mealtime insulin claim during the 12-month follow-up period. Persistence measure 1 defined non-persistence as the presence of a 90-day gap in mealtime insulin claims, effective the date of the last claim prior to the gap. Persistence measure 2 required 1 claim per quarter to be persistent. Risk factors for non-persistence were assessed using logistic regression. Patients initiating mealtime insulin (n = 4752; 51% male, mean age = 60.3 years) primarily used vial/syringe (87%) and insulin analogs (60%). Patients filled a median of 2, 3, and 4 mealtime insulin claims at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively, with a median time of 76 days between refills. According to measure 1, persistence to mealtime insulin was 40.7%, 30.2%, and 19.1% at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Results for measure 2 were considerably higher: 74.3%, 55.3%, and 42.2% of patients were persistent at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Initiating mealtime insulin with human insulin was a risk factor for non-persistence by both measures (OR < 0.80, p < 0.01). Additional predictors of non-persistence at 12 months included elderly age, increased insulin copayment, mental health comorbidity, and polypharmacy (p < 0.05 for all). Mealtime insulin use and persistence were both considerably lower than expected, and were significantly lower for human insulin compared to analogs.
    BMC Endocrine Disorders 01/2011; 11(1):3. DOI:10.1186/1472-6823-11-3 · 1.71 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The primary objective of this review was to identify and examine the literature on the association between medication adherence self-reported questionnaires (SRQs) and medication monitoring devices. The primary literature search was performed for 1980-2009 using PubMed, PubMed In Process and Non-Indexed, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process, PsycINFO (EBSCO), CINAHL (EBSCO), Ovid HealthStar, EMBASE (Elsevier) and Cochrane Databases and using the following search terms: 'patient compliance', 'medication adherence', 'treatment compliance', 'drug monitoring', 'drug therapy', 'electronic', 'digital', 'computer', 'monitor', 'monitoring', 'drug', 'drugs', 'pharmaceutical preparations', 'compliance' and 'medications'. We identified studies that included SRQs and electronic monitoring devices to measure adherence and focused on the SRQs that were found to be moderately to highly correlated with the monitoring devices. Of the 1679 citations found via the primary search, 41 full-text articles were reviewed for correlation between monitoring devices and SRQs. A majority (68%) of articles reported high (27%), moderate (29%) or significant (12%) correlation between monitoring devices (37 using Medication Event Monitoring System [MEMS®] and four using other devices) and SRQs (11 identified and numerous other unnamed SRQs). The most commonly used SRQs were the Adult/Pediatric AIDS Clinical Trial Group (AACTG/PACTG; 24.4%, 10/41) followed by the 4-item Morisky (9.8%, 4/41), Brief Medication Questionnaire (9.8%, 4/41) and visual analogue scale (VAS; 7.3%, 3/41). Although study designs differed across the articles, SRQs appeared to report a higher rate of medication adherence (+14.9%) than monitoring devices. In conclusion, several medication adherence SRQs were validated using electronic monitoring devices. A majority of them showed high or moderate correlation with medication adherence measured using monitoring devices, and could be considered for measuring patient-reported adherence prospectively.
    PharmacoEconomics 12/2010; 28(12):1097-107. DOI:10.2165/11537400-000000000-00000 · 2.45 Impact Factor
  • M Pawaskar · M Bonafede · BH Johnson · R Fowler · B Hoogwerf ·

    Value in Health 11/2010; 13(7). DOI:10.1016/S1098-3015(11)72141-6 · 3.28 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: It is vital to understand the associations between the medication event monitoring systems (MEMS) and self-reported questionnaires (SRQs) because both are often used to measure medication adherence and can produce different results. In addition, the economic implication of using alternative measures is important as the cost of electronic monitoring devices is not covered by insurance, while self-reports are the most practical and cost-effective method in the clinical settings. This meta-analysis examined the correlations of two measurements of medication adherence: MEMS and SRQs. The literature search (1980-2009) used PubMed, OVID MEDLINE, PsycINFO (EBSCO), CINAHL (EBSCO), OVID HealthStar, EMBASE (Elsevier), and Cochrane Databases. Studies were included if the correlation coefficients [Pearson (rp) or Spearman (rs)] between adherences measured by both MEMS and SRQs were available or could be calculated from other statistics in the articles. Data were independently abstracted in duplicate with standardized protocol and abstraction form including 1) first author's name; 2) year of publication; 3) disease status of participants; 4) sample size; 5) mean age (year); 6) duration of trials (month); 7) SRQ names if available; 8) adherence (%) measured by MEMS; 9) adherence (%) measured by SRQ; 10) correlation coefficient and relative information, including p-value, 95% confidence interval (CI). A meta-analysis was conducted to pool the correlation coefficients using random-effect model. Eleven studies (N = 1,684 patients) met the inclusion criteria. The mean of adherence measured by MEMS was 74.9% (range 53.4%-92.9%), versus 84.0% by SRQ (range 68.35%-95%). The correlation between adherence measured by MEMS and SRQs ranged from 0.24 to 0.87. The pooled correlation coefficient for 11 studies was 0.45 (p = 0.001, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.34-0.56). The subgroup meta-analysis on the seven studies reporting rp and four studies reporting rs reported the pooled correlation coefficient: 0.46 (p = 0.011, 95% CI: 0.33-0.59) and 0.43 (p = 0.0038, 95% CI: 0.23-0.64), respectively. No differences were found for other subgroup analyses. Medication adherence measured by MEMS and SRQs tends to be at least moderately correlated, suggesting that SRQs give a good estimate of medication adherence.
    Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 09/2010; 8(1):99. DOI:10.1186/1477-7525-8-99 · 2.12 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To describe insulin persistence among patients with type 2 diabetes initiating insulin therapy with basal insulin or insulin mixtures and determine factors associated with nonpersistence. The Thomson Reuters MarketScan((R)) databases were used to retrospectively analyze insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes by initiating insulin therapy. Insulin use was described using a variety of measures. The persistence to insulin was described using both a gap-based measure and the number of claims measure. Patients in the basal insulin cohort (N = 15,255) primarily used insulin analogs (88.1%) and vial and syringe (97%). Patients in the mixture cohort (N = 2,732) were more likely to initiate on human insulin mixtures (62.5%) and vial and syringe (68.1%). Average time between insulin refills was 80 and 71 days for basal and mixture initiators, respectively. Nearly, 75% of basal insulin initiators and 65% of insulin mixture initiators had a 90-day gap in insulin prescriptions. More than half of all the patients had at least one insulin prescription per quarter. Patients initiating with insulin analogs were more likely to be persistent compared with those initiating with human insulin across both cohorts and measures of persistence (P < 0.001). Persistence to insulin therapy is poorer than one would anticipate, but appears to be higher in users of insulin analogs and insulin mixtures.
    Patient Preference and Adherence 06/2010; 4:147-56. · 1.68 Impact Factor

Publication Stats

449 Citations
100.67 Total Impact Points


  • 2010-2013
    • Eli Lilly
      Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
  • 2007-2009
    • The Ohio State University
      • Division of Pharmacy Practice and Administration
      Columbus, Ohio, United States
  • 2008
    • Pennsylvania State University
      University Park, Maryland, United States
  • 2004-2005
    • University of Houston
      • • Department of Clinical Sciences & Administration
      • • College of Pharmacy
      Houston, Texas, United States