4.7 Review

Systematic review: impact of non-adherence to 5-aminosalicylic acid products on the frequency and cost of ulcerative colitis flares

期刊

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
卷 29, 期 3, 页码 247-257

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2008.03865.x

关键词

-

资金

  1. Shire Pharmaceuticals
  2. Procter and Gamble Pharmaceuticals
  3. UCB
  4. Centocor
  5. Abbott
  6. NIH
  7. CCFA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Ulcerative colitis (UC) can be maintained in remission with 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) medications, but frequent non-adherence by patients who are feeling well has been associated with more frequent flares of colitis. Aim To perform a systematic review of the published literature and unpublished randomized clinical trials (RCTs) regarding the impact of non-adherence with 5-ASA medications on the incidence of UC flares and costs of care. Methods A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane databases was performed. Prospective studies of UC maintenance with 5-ASAs in adults were selected if they included data on adherence and disease flares. Studies using insurance claims data to estimate the impact of non-adherence on cost of care were included. Data from unpublished RCTs were obtained from the FDA with a request under the Freedom of Information Act. Results The relative risk for flare in non-adherent vs. adherent patients ranged from 3.65 to infinity. Data were obtained from six unpublished 5-ASA RCTs, but none measured the impact of adherence on disease activity. The comorbidity-adjusted annual costs of care in adherent patients were 12.5% less than in non-adherent patients, despite increased medication expenditures. Conclusions A substantial proportion of UC flares and medical costs of UC are attributable to 5-ASA non-adherence. As non-adherence to 5-ASA medications is common, cost-effective strategies to improve adherence are needed. The impact of adherence on disease activity should be measured in RCTs of all inflammatory bowel disease treatments.

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