BackgroundBiological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) and tofacitinib are highly effective, but with different pharmaceutical forms, adverse reactions and cost that could affect adherence therapy and drug access.ObjectivesTo determine patient adherence and administrative access to the treatment with bDMARDs and tofacitnib in patients with rheumatological diseases in Colombia.MethodsA retrospective cohort study, which included all patients in management with bDMARD and tofactinib initiated between July 1, 2015 and June 30, 2016. A monthly follow-up of the administrative adherence were evaluated by holding or applying the medication, as well as the application of Morisky-Green test in self-administered oral and subcutaneous therapies (non-adherent patient was considered when at least one doses is lost), other variables such as sociodemographic, comorbidities, and co-prescriptions were evaluated. A descriptive analysis, χ2 for comparison and multivariate logistic regression were performed.ResultsA total of 1102 patients were evaluated, with a mean age of 52.8±15.4 years and a female predominance (72.8%). The most frequent comorbidities were hypertension (22.6%) and dyslipidemia (15.9%). The most prescribed drugs studied were adalimumab (31.9%), etanercept (22.2%) and tofacitinib (12.5%). 52.8% use conventional DMARDs and 42.2% use glucocorticoids. Global adherence was 66.3% as measured by Morisky-Green test. Adherence was better with self-administered subcutaneous drugs every week or longer, compared to daily dosing of oral drug; these data are detailed in table 1. In 42.4% of the patients, at least one delay per year in the application or dispensation occurred, leading to 36.1% of patients experiencing dose losses due to difficulties in access. The main reason (23%) for delays and dose losses is the failures by health-insurance companies to allow timely access to the therapy. In the multivariate analysis treatment with adalimumab or tofacitinib was associated with a greater probability of presenting delays in access after adjustment of variables.ConclusionsSubcutaneous self-applications of bDMARD have better adherence rates compared to oral drug. However, the limitations in access to treatment decrease the adherence. On the other hand the impact of the adherence could be major in the case of self-administered DMARD when weekly or longer intervals doses are lost, compared with the loss of one daily dose of tofacitinib.References Scott DL, et al. Rheumatoid arthritis. Lancet. 2010;376(9746):1094–108.Machado-Alba JE, et al. Effectiveness of treatment with biologic- and DMARD in rheumatoid arthritis patients in Colombia. Int J Clin Pract. 2016;70(6):506–11.Jorgensen TS, et al. Effectiveness and drug adherence of biologic monotherapy in routine care of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a cohort study of patients registered in the Danish biologics registry. Rheumatology. 2015;54(12):2156–65. AcknowledgementsTo Universidad Tecnolόgica de Pereira and Audifarma S.A.Disclosure of InterestJ. Machado-Alba Grant/r...
catch-up series. Patients with increased odds (OR, 95% CI) of documented completion of the catch-up series included those with a history of receiving Td abroad (1.62, 1.15-2.27), an initial screen from 2011-2013 (2.08, 1.49-2.90), from Bhutan/Nepal (1.80, 1.00-3.24), and a diabetes diagnosis (2.02, 1.08-3.76). ConClusions: While a high proportion of recently resettled refugees received Tdap, a low proportion had documentation of completing the catch-up series. Resources to support overseas vaccination programs should be continued and expanded because those who started the tetanus-diphtheria series abroad had increased odds of completing the series once resettled in the US. Additionally, medical institutions should enhance follow-up coordination to ensure patients return to clinic to complete the vaccination series.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.