4.7 Article

Changing patterns of medication use in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in a Medicaid population

期刊

RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 47, 期 7, 页码 1061-1064

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/ken193

关键词

rheumatoid arthritis; disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs; epidemiology

资金

  1. PHS HHS [290200500421] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NCIRD CDC HHS [K01 IP000163] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To examine changes in patterns of medication utilization in patients with RA. Methods. Data from Tennessee Medicaid (TennCare) databases (19952004) were used to identify adults with both a diagnosis of RA and at least one DMARD prescription each year. Annual age-specific utilization of DMARDs, glucocorticoids, NSAIDs and narcotics was measured on the last day of each year to determine the point prevalence of use of these agents. Results. Records from 23 342 patients with treated RA were analysed. Most patients were females (78) and white (74). The median age was 57 yrs (interquartile range: 4865). The proportion of patients who had a current DMARD prescription on the index date increased from 62 in 1995 to 71 in 2004 (P < 0.001). MTX was the most commonly used DMARD. By the end of 2004, 22 of patients had a current prescription for a biologic, and etanercept represented 51 of all biologic therapies. During the study period, the overall utilization of glucocorticoids decreased from 46 to 38 (P < 0.001), whereas NSAID utilization increased from 33 to 38 (P < 0.001), and use of narcotics increased from 38 to 55 (P < 0.001). A secondary analysis that identified RA patients based on diagnosis codes alone, showed similar patterns, but lower DMARD utilization which increased from 33 to 52 overall and from 0 to 16 for biologics. Conclusions. The utilization of DMARDs increased in TennCare patients with RA, and by 2004, use of biologics was substantial. Although glucocorticoid utilization decreased, use of both NSAIDs and narcotics increased.

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

4.7
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