A concept-wide association study to identify potential risk factors for nonadherence among prevalent users of antihypertensives.

PURPOSE: We sought to determine whether an association study using information contained in clinical notes could identify known and potentially novel risk factors for nonadherence to antihypertensive medications. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective concept-wide association study (CWAS) using clinical notes to identify potential risk factors for medication nonadherence, adjusting for age, sex, race, baseline blood pressure, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and a combined comorbidity score. Participants included Medicare beneficiaries 65 years and older receiving care at the Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates network from 2010-2012 and enrolled in a Medicare Advantage program. Concepts were extracted from clinical notes in the year prior to the index prescription date for each patient. We tested associations with the outcome for 5013 concepts extracted from clinical notes in a derivation cohort (4382 patients) and accounted for multiple hypothesis testing by using a false discovery rate threshold of less than 5% (q < .05). We then confirmed the associations in a validation cohort (3836 patients). Medication nonadherence was defined using a proportion of days covered (PDC) threshold less than 0.8 using pharmacy claims data. RESULTS: We found 415 concepts associated with nonadherence, which we organized into 11 clusters using a hierarchical clustering approach. Volume depletion and overload, assessment of needs at the point of discharge, mood disorders, neurological disorders, complex coordination of care, and documentation of noncompliance were some of the factors associated with nonadherence. CONCLUSIONS: This approach was successful in identifying previously described and potentially new risk factors for antihypertensive nonadherence using the clinical narrative.

The relative benefits of claims and electronic health record data for predicting medication adherence trajectory.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare providers are increasingly encouraged to improve their patients' adherence to chronic disease medications. Prediction of adherence can identify patients in need of intervention, but most prediction efforts have focused on claims data, which may be unavailable to providers. Electronic health records (EHR) are readily available and may provide richer information with which to predict adherence than is currently available through claims. METHODS: In a linked database of complete Medicare Advantage claims and comprehensive EHR from a multi-specialty outpatient practice, we identified patients who filled a prescription for a statin, antihypertensive, or oral antidiabetic during 2011 to 2012. We followed patients to identify subsequent medication filling patterns and used group-based trajectory models to assign patients to adherence trajectories. We then identified potential predictors from both claims and EHR data and fit a series of models to evaluate the accuracy of each data source in predicting medication adherence. RESULTS: Claims were highly predictive of patients in the worst adherence trajectory (C=0.78), but EHR data also provided good predictions (C=0.72). Among claims predictors, presence of a prior gap in filling of at least 6 days was by far the most influential predictor. In contrast, good predictions from EHR data required complex models with many variables. CONCLUSION: EHR data can provide good predictions of adherence trajectory and therefore may be useful for providers seeking to deploy resource-intensive interventions. However, prior adherence information derived from claims is most predictive, and can supplement EHR data when it is available.

A new taxonomy for stakeholder engagement in patient-centered outcomes research.

Despite widespread agreement that stakeholder engagement is needed in patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR), no taxonomy exists to guide researchers and policy makers on how to address this need. We followed an iterative process, including several stages of stakeholder review, to address three questions: (1) Who are the stakeholders in PCOR? (2) What roles and responsibilities can stakeholders have in PCOR? (3) How can researchers start engaging stakeholders? We introduce a flexible taxonomy called the 7Ps of Stakeholder Engagement and Six Stages of Research for identifying stakeholders and developing engagement strategies across the full spectrum of research activities. The path toward engagement will not be uniform across every research program, but this taxonomy offers a common starting point and a flexible approach.

A Useful and Sustainable Role for N-of-1 Trials in the Healthcare Ecosystem.

Clinicians and patients often try a treatment for an initial period to inform longer-term therapeutic decisions. A more rigorous approach involves N-of-1 trials. In these single-patient crossover trials, typically conducted in patients with chronic conditions, individual patients are given candidate treatments in a double-blinded, random sequence of alternating periods to determine the most effective treatment for that patient. However, to date, these trials are rarely done outside of research settings and have not been integrated into general care where they could offer substantial benefit. Designating this classical, N-of-1 trial design as type 1, there also are new and evolving uses of N-of-1 trials that we designate as type 2. In these, rather than focusing on optimizing treatment for chronic diseases when multiple approved choices are available, as is typical of type 1, a type 2 N-of-1 trial tests treatments designed specifically for a patient with a rare disease, to facilitate personalized medicine. While the aims differ, both types face the challenge of collecting individual-patient evidence using standard, trusted, widely accepted methods. To fulfill their potential for producing both clinical and research benefits, and to be available for wide use, N-of-1 trials will have to fit into the current healthcare ecosystem. This will require generalizable and accepted processes, platforms, methods, and standards. This also will require sustainable value-based arrangements among key stakeholders. In this article, we review opportunities, stakeholders, issues, and possible approaches that could support general use of N-of-1 trials and deliver benefit to patients and the healthcare enterprise. To assess and expand the benefits of N-of-1 trials, we propose multistakeholder meetings, workshops, and the generation of methods, standards, and platforms that would support wider availability and the value of N-of-1 trials.

Efficacy and Effectiveness Too Trials: Clinical Trial Designs to Generate Evidence on Efficacy and on Effectiveness in Wide Practice.

Efficacy trials, designed to gain regulatory marketing approval, evaluate drugs in optimally selected patients under advantageous conditions for relatively short time periods. Effectiveness trials, designed to evaluate use in usual practice, assess treatments among more typical patients in real-world conditions with longer follow-up periods. In "efficacy-to-effectiveness (E2E) trials," if the initial efficacy trial component is positive, the trial seamlessly transitions to an effectiveness trial component to efficiently yield both types of evidence. Yet more time could be saved by simultaneously addressing efficacy and effectiveness in an "efficacy and effectiveness too (EE2) trial." Additionally, hybrids of the E2E and EE2 approaches with differing degrees of overlap of the two components could allow flexibility for specific drug development needs. In planning EE2 trials, each stakeholder's current and future needs, incentives, and perspective must be considered. Although challenging, the ultimate benefits to stakeholders, the health system, and the public should justify this effort.

Self-Reported Medication Adherence Barriers Among Ambulatory Older Adults with Mild Cognitive Impairment.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the frequencies of barriers to medication adherence reported by ambulatory older adults with a diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and ambulatory older adults with normal cognition. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Outpatient clinics within a safety-net health care system. PARTICIPANTS: Ambulatory older adults (≥ 65 yrs) with a diagnosis of MCI (96 participants) or normal cognition (104 participants). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Self-reported beliefs and barriers to medication nonadherence were assessed by items from the Morisky Medication Adherence Survey, the Adherence Estimator, and barriers derived from a systematic review of studies in older adults with cognitive impairment. Participants with a diagnosis of MCI had a mean age of 72 years, 77% were female, and 37% were African-American. Participants with normal cognition had a mean age of 76 years, 79% were female, and 47% were African-American. Among all participants, 83% reported the presence of at least one barrier to medication adherence, and 62.5% reported two or more barriers to medication adherence. The most commonly reported barriers were difficulty remembering the amount or time of each medication to take (49%), difficulty opening or reading prescription bottles (42%), feeling worse when taking medications (29%), and trouble affording medications (26%). Considering the multiple comparisons made in this analysis, few significant differences in barrier frequencies were identified between the groups with MCI and normal cognition. CONCLUSION: Multiple medication adherence barriers were identified among all participants, including cognitive, physical, and financial barriers, although few significant differences were identified between those with and without MCI. Interventions capable of addressing multiple barriers are required to improve medication adherence in older adults with and without MCI.

Patient-centered priorities for improving medication management and adherence.

OBJECTIVE: The Centers for Education and Research on Therapeutics convened a workshop to examine the scientific evidence on medication adherence interventions from the patient-centered perspective and to explore the potential of patient-centered medication management to improve chronic disease treatment. METHODS: Patients, providers, researchers, and other stakeholders (N = 28) identified and prioritized ideas for future research and practice. We analyzed stakeholder voting on priorities and reviewed themes in workshop discussions. RESULTS: Ten priority areas emerged. Three areas were highly rated by all stakeholder groups: creating tools and systems to facilitate and evaluate patient-centered medication management plans; developing training on patient-centered prescribing for providers; and increasing patients' knowledge about medication management. However, priorities differed across stakeholder groups. Notably, patients prioritized using peer support to improve medication management while researchers did not. CONCLUSION: Engaging multiple stakeholders in setting a patient-centered research agenda and broadening the scope of adherence interventions to include other aspects of medication management resulted in priorities outside the traditional scope of adherence research. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Workshop participants recognized the potential benefits of patient-centered medication management but also identified many challenges to implementation that require additional research and innovation.

Value-based insurance plus disease management increased medication use and produced savings.

We evaluated the effects of implementing a value-based insurance design program for patients with diabetes in two groups within a single firm. One group participated in disease management; the other did not. We matched members of the two groups to similar enrollees within the company that did not offer the value-based program. We found that participation in both value-based insurance design and disease management resulted in sustained improvement over time. Use of diabetes medications increased 6.5 percent over three years. Adherence to diabetes medical guidelines also increased, producing a return on investment of $1.33 saved for every dollar spent during a three-year follow-up period.

Evidence-based coverage decisions? Primum non nocere.

Drug class reviews are blunt tools for medical decision making. The practice of evidence-based medicine is far more than simply systematic reviews: The patient and doctor are integral. Here we highlight areas of evidence-based coverage decision making where greater balance and transparency could serve to improve the current process, and we recommend elements of a more positive approach that could optimize patient outcomes under resource constraints.