Evidence Hub

Treatment patterns and factors associated with adherence in pulmonary arterial hypertension

M. Albanell-Fernández, María Margalida Mestre, Belen Lopez, Rubén González-García, J. Planas, M. Serrano, E. Wilhelmi, Thais Lizondo et al.

Farmacia Hospitalaria, 2024

63 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Improving understanding of actual pulmonary hypertension (PH) treatment adherence patterns is crucial to properly treating these patients. We aimed to primarily assess adherence to treatments used for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) specific therapies, identify potential factors related to it and secondly describe its treatment patterns.

METHODS

A 6-month observational cross-sectional study in a tertiary care hospital was conducted. Patients with PH-targeted therapy who picked it up in the ambulatory hospital pharmacy and who had been on treatment with the same drug for at least 1 year were included. Adherence was assessed as: 1) Proportion of days covered (PDC); and 2) Simplified Medication Adherence Questionnaire (SMAQ). PDC greater than 80% was considered adherent. Statistical analyses were performed to evaluate the study outcomes. Logistic regressions were estimated to identify the association between baseline characteristics and factors associated with adherence. A p < 0.05 indicated statistical significance.

RESULTS

A total of 63 patients with 127 different treatments were included, 71.4% were females with a mean age (SD) of 59 (DE 15) years. PAH was the most common diagnosis (74.6%). Double therapy was used in 39.7% of patients, being the combination of macitentan + tadalafil and ambrisentan + tadalafil the most prescribed. Endothelin receptor antagonists were the most used treatment (40.2%).…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 63 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free