4.3 Article

Medication Adherence and Persistence of Open-Angle Glaucoma Patients in Korea: A Retrospective Study Using National Health Insurance Claims Data

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18084106

关键词

open-angle glaucoma; medication adherence; persistence; claim database

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to analyze medication adherence and persistence among open-angle glaucoma patients in Korea. Results showed that older age, female gender, the use of prostaglandins as the index medication, and visits to secondary or tertiary hospitals were associated with higher rates of adherence and persistence during the study period.
This study aimed to analyze medication adherence and persistence among open-angle glaucoma patients in Korea. A retrospective study was conducted using the Korean National Health Insurance (NHI) claims database from 2016 to 2019. Newly diagnosed open-angle glaucoma patients who were prescribed with the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering eyedrops were included. Adherence was measured using the medication possession ratio (MPR), and persistence was measured using the duration of therapy during the 24 month follow-up period. During the study period, 14,648 open-angle glaucoma patients were identified, and 3118 (21.3%) and 4481 patients (30.6%) were adherent to and persistent with their glaucoma treatment, respectively. The mean MPR was 48.8%, and the mean duration of therapy was 357.2 days. Logistic regression analysis showed that patients who are older, female, using prostaglandins as the index medication, and visiting secondary or tertiary hospitals were significantly associated with greater rates of adherence (odds ratio (OR) = 1.21, 1.12, 1.27, and 1.73, respectively) and persistence (OR = 1.11, 1.17, 1.16, 1.17, and 1.36, respectively) during the study period. Patients with open-angle glaucoma in Korea had substandard medication adherence and discontinued their treatment. Ophthalmologists should pay more attention to younger, male patients to improve adherence.

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

4.3
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