ArticleJournal of managed care & specialty pharmacy2017
Estimation of Missed Statin Prescription Use in an Administrative Claims Dataset.
Article in Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Treatment patterns in homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia: Undertreatment and delayed adoption of low-density lipoprotein receptor-independent therapies.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2026Article
- Clinical and demographic profiles of people not meeting LDL-C goals after treatment with a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2026Article
- Treatment patterns for patients initiating novel acute migraine specific medications (nAMSMs) in the context of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway.The journal of headache and pain · 2023Article
- Examining Real-World Adherence to Nusinersen for the Treatment of Spinal Muscular Atrophy Using Two Large US Data Sources.Advances in therapy · 2023Article
- Use of Open Claims vs Closed Claims in Health Outcomes Research.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2023Article
- Geographic variations in lipid-lowering therapy utilization, LDL-C levels, and proportion retrospectively meeting the ACC/AHA very high-risk criteria in a real-world population of patients with major atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events in the United States.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2021Article
- Adoption of PCSK9 Inhibitors Among Patients With Atherosclerotic Disease.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021Article
- Lipid treatment and goal attainment characteristics among persons with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the United States.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2020Article
- Bias in pharmacoepidemiologic studies using secondary health care databases: a scoping review.BMC medical research methodology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNonadherence to statin medications is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease and poses a challenge to lipid management in patients who are at risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Numerous studies have examined statin adherence based on administrative claims data; however, these data may underestimate statin use in patients who participate in generic drug discount programs or who have alternative coverage.
objectiveTo estimate the proportion of patients with missing statin claims in a claims database and determine how missing claims affect commonly used utilization metrics.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study used pharmacy data from the PharMetrics Plus (P+) claims dataset linked to the IMS longitudinal pharmacy point-of-sale prescription database (LRx) from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2014. Eligible patients were represented in the P+ and LRx datasets, had ≥1 claim for a statin (index claim) in either database, and had ≥ 24 months of continuous enrollment in P+. Patients were linked between P+ and LRx using a deterministic method. Duplicate claims between LRx and P+ were removed to produce a new dataset comprised of P+ claims augmented with LRx claims. Statin use was then compared between P+ and the augmented P+ dataset. Utilization metrics that were evaluated included percentage of patients with ≥ 1 missing statin claim over 12 months in P+; the number of patients misclassified as new users in P+; the number of patients misclassified as nonstatin users in P+; the change in 12-month medication possession ratio (MPR) and proportion of days covered (PDC) in P+; the comparison between P+ and LRx of classifications of statin treatment patterns (statin intensity and patients with treatment modifications); and the payment status for missing statin claims.
resultsData from 965,785 patients with statin claims in P+ were analyzed (mean age 56.6 years; 57% male). In P+, 20.1% had ≥ 1 missing statin claim post-index; 13.7% were misclassified as nonstatin users; and 14.9% were misclassified as new statin users. MPR was higher in the augmented P+ dataset versus the P+ dataset alone for all patients (79.4% vs. 76.7%, P < 0.001) and new users (61.4% vs. 58.7%, P < 0.001). Similarly, mean PDC was higher in the P+ dataset augmented with LRx versus the P+ dataset alone for all patients (76.0% vs. 74.0%, P < 0.001) and new users (58.5% vs. 56.5%, P < 0.001). Most patients received moderate-intensity statins; few changes in dose, intensity, or discontinuation of statins were observed when the P+ dataset was augmented. The most common reasons for missing data were payment by an alternate third-party program (66.3%) and use of cash, coupon, or discount cards (18.7%).
conclusionsAugmenting commercial claims data with point-of-sale data provides a more accurate assessment of statin use than claims data alone. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Amgen, which contributed to data interpretation and manuscript preparation. Wade, Hill, and De are employees of QuintilesIMS, which received funding from Amgen for work on this study. Patel and Harrison are employees of Amgen and own Amgen stock/stock options. Study concept and design were contributed by Wade, Hill, Patel, and Harrison. De took the lead in data collection, along with the other authors, and all authors contributed to data analysis. The manuscript was written and revised by all the authors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.