4.2 Article

Inhaled corticosteroid adherence and emergency department utilization among Medicaid-enrolled children with asthma

期刊

JOURNAL OF ASTHMA
卷 50, 期 7, 页码 769-775

出版社

INFORMA HEALTHCARE
DOI: 10.3109/02770903.2013.799687

关键词

Adherence; asthma; emergency department use; low-income; Medicaid; outcomes

资金

  1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) [1R24HS019470]
  2. Jay Roman Medical Student Endowment
  3. NIH/NIMHD [2S21MD000101]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Asthma is the most prevalent chronic disease among children enrolled in Medicaid. This study measured real-world adherence and outcomes after an initial prescription for inhaled corticosteroid therapy in a multi-state Medicaid population. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study among Medicaid-enrolled children aged 5-12 years with asthma in 14 southern states using 2007 Medicaid Analytic eXtract file claims data to assess adherence and outcomes over the 3 months following an initial prescription drug claim for inhaled corticosteroids (ICS-Rx). Adherence was measured by the long-term controller-to-total asthma drug claims ratio. Results: Only one-third of children (33.4%) with an initial ICS-Rx achieved a controller-to-total drug ratio >0.5 over the next 90 days. Children for whom long-term control drugs represented less than half of their total asthma drug claims had a 21% higher risk of emergency department (ED) visit (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.21 [95% CI 1.14, 1.27]), and a 70% higher risk of hospital admission (AOR 1.70 [95% CI 1.45, 1.98]) than those with a controller-to-total asthma drug ratio >0.5. Conclusion: Real-world adherence to long-term controller medications is quite low in this racially diverse, low-income segment of the population, despite Medicaid coverage of medications. Adherence to long-term controller therapy had a measurable impact on real-world outcomes. Medicaid programs are a potential surveillance system for both medication adherence and ED utilization.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据