Context Knowledge of long-term persistence with 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme
A reductase inhibitor (statin) therapy is limited because previous studies
have observed patients for short periods of time, in closely monitored clinical
trials, or in other unrepresentative settings.
Objective To describe the patterns and predictors of long-term persistence with
statin therapy in an elderly US population.
Design, Setting, and Patients Retrospective cohort study including 34 501 enrollees in the New
Jersey Medicaid and Pharmaceutical Assistance to the Aged and Disabled programs
who were 65 years of age and older, initiated statin treatment between 1990
and 1998, and who were followed up until death, disenrollment, or December
31, 1999.
Main Outcome Measures Proportion of days covered (PDC) by a statin in each quarter during
the first year of therapy and every 6 months thereafter; predictors of suboptimal
persistence during each interval (PDC <80%) were identified using generalized
linear models for repeated measures.
Results The mean PDC was 79% in the first 3 months of treatment, 56% in the
second quarter, and 42% after 120 months. Only 1 patient in 4 maintained a
PDC of at least 80% after 5 years. The proportion of patients with a PDC less
than 80% increased in a log-linear manner, comprising 40%, 61%, and 68% of
the cohort after 3, 12, and 120 months, respectively. Independent predictors
of poor long-term persistence included nonwhite race, lower income, older
age, less cardiovascular morbidity at initiation of therapy, depression, dementia,
and occurrence of coronary heart disease events after starting treatment.
Patients who initiated therapy between 1996-1998 were 21% to 25% more likely
to have a PDC of at least 80% than those who started in 1990.
Conclusions Persistence with statin therapy in older patients declines substantially
over time, with the greatest drop occurring in the first 6 months of treatment.
Despite slightly better persistence among patients who began treatment in
recent years, long-term use remains low. Interventions are needed early in
treatment and among high-risk groups, including those who experience coronary
heart disease events after initiating treatment.
Cardiovascular disease accounts for 950 000 deaths annually in
the United States, including 460 000 deaths from coronary heart disease
(CHD).1 Eighty-five percent of those who die
of CHD and 72% of those who experience a stroke each year are 65 years of
age and older.1 Since 1994, 6 large clinical
trials have shown that 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitors
(statins) significantly reduce the incidence of CHD-related morbidity and
mortality and strokes in patients undergoing treatment for an average of 5
years.2-7
Analyses suggest that the benefits of statin treatment in patients 65 years
of age and older are quite similar to those seen in younger patients.7-10 The
recent National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III recommendations
expanded the treatment-eligible elderly population from 4.2 million to 9.7
million individuals11 and emphasized that adherence
to lipid-lowering therapy is critical to achieving the full population effectiveness
of primary and secondary prevention.12
Although the rate of statin use among the elderly has risen in recent
years,13 a substantial treatment gap remains.
Elderly patients fail to receive indicated lipid-lowering medications as often
as 80% of the time,14,15 and even
fewer achieve serum cholesterol goals.16 This
may be because physicians fail to prescribe lipid-lowering medications, patients
fail to obtain and consume them, or both. Little is known about long-term
persistence with statin therapy among older patients in routine care settings
because previous studies have preferentially enrolled younger patients,17,18 followed them for short periods of
time,17,19-21
or informed subjects that their medication use was being monitored,17,18,22 reducing the generalizability
of the observed data. Previous studies are also of limited use to clinicians
and policymakers because they fail to reveal changes in statin use over time.
Targeting persistence-enhancing interventions so that they have the most leverage
and potential benefit will require knowledge of the time during therapy when
discontinuation is most likely, and which patient subgroups are at highest
risk. In addition, long-term persistence rates are necessary to estimate the
population-level costs and benefits of statins in actual practice.
To address these issues, we used a repeated measures approach to assess
intensity and predictors of statin use among a large cohort of elderly patients
for up to 10 years after treatment initiation. Our specific objectives were
(1) to describe long-term trends in statin use, including changes over time;
(2) to identify patient characteristics that predict poor long-term persistence;
and (3) to determine whether the growing evidence in support of statin use
has improved persistence over time.
We conducted a retrospective cohort study covering the period 1990-1999
among enrollees of the New Jersey state Medicaid or Pharmaceutical Assistance
to the Aged and Disabled (PAAD) programs who were 65 years of age and older
and initiated therapy with a statin (atorvastatin, cerivastatin, fluvastatin,
lovastatin, pravastatin, or simvastatin) between 1990 and 1998. To protect
the confidentiality of program participants, all personal identifiers were
removed prior to data analysis. Institutional review board approval was obtained
for this research. To be eligible for Medicaid during this period required
an annual income below the federal poverty level; PAAD provided pharmacy benefits
to a less indigent population, with income ceilings over 200% of the federal
poverty level. New Jersey Medicaid had no deductible, co-payment, or maximum
benefit for drugs; the PAAD program had no deductible or maximum benefit,
but required a $5 co-payment for each prescription filled. Neither program
had any formulary restrictions.
Data came from a computerized database of linked pharmacy, physician,
hospital, and nursing home claims. Medicaid and PAAD data were available for
1989 through 1999; Medicare data for the same population were available for
1989 through 1998. The date of a patient's first pharmacy claim for any statin
between January 2, 1990, and December 31, 1998, was defined as that subject's
index date. We restricted our analysis to new statin users by including only
those enrollees who filled at least 1 prescription for any drug, but no statin
prescriptions, during 3 consecutive 6-month intervals prior to the index date.
To ensure complete ascertainment of medical and nursing home services, we
also required at least 1 claim for any nondrug clinical service during each
of these 3 preindex intervals.
Individuals were followed up from the index date until their death,
program disenrollment, or December 31, 1999, whichever occurred first. Statin
use was measured quarterly during the first year and at 6-month intervals
thereafter. Since most elderly patients fill prescriptions for multiple medications,23 we assumed patients had disenrolled from their payer's
program if they filled no prescriptions for any drug in 2 consecutive 6-month
periods. If this occurred, statin use was not recorded for these or any subsequent
intervals. We tested the sensitivity of results to this assumption by using
thresholds of 6 months and 24 months without a prescription claim.
We use the term "adherence" to represent the degree of prescription-filling
in a given interval, and "persistence" to represent the duration of time over
which a patient continued to fill statin prescriptions. The quantity dispensed
and number of days supplied from each filled prescription were used to calculate
the proportion of days on which a patient had a statin available in each interval
(proportion of days covered [PDC]). We then divided the cohort into 3 groups
at each interval: adherent individuals were defined
as those with a PDC of at least 80% in a given interval. Partially adherent individuals were those having a PDC of 20% to 79%;
those with a PDC less than 20% were considered nonadherent. We considered partial adherence or nonadherence in a given interval
to be signs of suboptimal persistence. Although the
amount of clinical benefit achieved at each of these levels of statin use
is unknown, we used them to make our results comparable with other studies
of medication use.24,25 To determine
whether patients who became nonadherent with statins switched to other types
of lipid-lowering medications, we also calculated the proportion of these
patients who filled at least 1 prescription for a nonstatin lipid-lowering
prescription drug in the next interval.
Potential Predictors of Suboptimal Persistence
We studied several demographic and clinical characteristics available
to a primary care physician when therapy is initiated to identify predictors
of suboptimal persistence. Our selection of potential predictors was also
informed by previous studies of chronic medication use in elderly patients.19,20,26,27 Demographic
variables included age, sex, race, and prescription program (Medicaid or PAAD).
Because individuals could not be dually eligible for Medicaid and PAAD prescription
coverage, prescription program was a proxy for socioeconomic status. Clinical
characteristics were identified based on hospital and outpatient diagnoses,
medical procedures, and filled prescriptions during the 365 days prior to
the index date. Of particular interest was the influence of pretreatment and
posttreatment occurrences of CHD. We categorized patients with evidence of
pretreatment CHD into 3 groups: evidence of angina or coronary angiography
(CHD group 1); evidence of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), percutaneous
transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA), or chronic CHD (CHD group 2); and
evidence of acute MI (CHD group 3). Patients who met the criteria for more
than 1 group were assigned to the most severe category. We assessed the influence
on persistence of posttreatment CHD occurrences by creating time-varying covariates
for events indicating group 2 and group 3 CHD, in the 12 months preceding
a given 6-month interval. Other comorbid conditions assessed in the year prior
to therapy included history of stroke, hypertension, congestive heart failure
(CHF), diabetes, depression, and dementia.
Health services utilization variables were also based on the year prior
to the start of statin therapy and included the frequency of hospitalizations
and outpatient physician visits, number of different medications prescribed,
Charlson comorbidity score,28,29
and residency in a long-term care facility on the index date. To test the
hypothesis that persistence may have been better among patients who began
therapy after publication of the major statin trials,2-6
we divided the cohort into groups based on their index year and then compared
persistence during the follow-up period using 1990 as the referent year.
The mean and median PDC and the proportion of patients classified as adherent, partially adherent, and nonadherent were calculated for each interval. To identify significant predictors
of suboptimal persistence over time, we used generalized linear models for
repeated measures30 to estimate the probability
that a subject had less than 80% PDC in each interval. The decline in persistence
over time (in months) was assumed to be linear on the loge scale,
based on comparisons of linear, quadratic, and log-linear univariate models.
Potential predictors of suboptimal persistence were considered statistically
significant at the P<.05 level. The final multivariate
model was adjusted for time since the index date and for all the characteristics
listed above. All statistical procedures were performed using SAS version
8.2.31
Population Characteristics
A total of 34 501 new statin users met our inclusion criteria.
Baseline characteristics of the study population are shown in Table 1. Most of the patients were white women, with an average
age of 74 years when statin treatment was initiated. Two thirds of the population
were enrollees in the PAAD program; the remainder received their drug benefits
from Medicaid. Most patients began treatment with simvastatin or lovastatin.
When classified according to the presence of CHD in the year prior to
index, 22% of patients had evidence of angina or coronary angiography in the
baseline year (group 1); another 15% had a PTCA, CABG, or treatment for chronic
CHD (group 2); 7% experienced an acute myocardial infarction (MI) (group 3);
and 55% had none of these markers of CHD. During the follow-up period, group
2 and group 3 CHD events occurred in 23% and 10% of patients, respectively.
Hypertension was the most prevalent comorbid condition, followed by CHF, diabetes,
depression, dementia, and stroke. Twenty-three percent of the cohort died
during the follow-up period.
Patterns of Use Over Time
The mean, median, and interquartile range for the PDC observed at each
interval over the 10-year period are shown in Figure 1. Statin use declined sharply and early after initiation
of therapy, from a mean PDC of 79% in the first 3 months, to 56% after 6 months,
and 50% after 12 months. In subsequent years, the mean PDC continued to decline
gradually, to a low of 35% after 60 months, but then increased slightly to
42% after 120 months. The median PDC declined much more rapidly than the mean,
from 91% after 3 months to 0 at 54 months. Median persistence remained 0 until
102 months, when it began to increase slightly among the relatively small
number of remaining patients. These results were robust to changes in the
number of inactive months required for a subject to be considered disenrolled
from the payer program.
The proportion of patients who were adherent with statin therapy was
60%, 43%, 26%, and 32% after 3, 6, 60, and 120 months, respectively (Figure 2). Virtually none of the cohort were
defined as nonadherent during the first 3 months of therapy (because initial
supplies were typically 30-90 days). However, nonadherent patients comprised
29% of the population at 6 months and 56% at 60 months, after which the proportion
remained approximately constant until the final 2 years of follow-up when
persistence improved slightly. A large proportion of patients were partially
adherent early on, but this group narrowed over time, comprising 40%, 29%,
and 18% of the cohort after 3, 6, and 60 months, respectively, with most of
these patients transitioning into the nonadherent group. Of those who became
nonadherent with statin therapy, only 4% filled a prescription for a nonstatin
lipid-lowering medication in the next interval, and fewer than 1% had a PDC
of at least 80% with that medication. Thus, very few patients could have been
misclassified as nonadherent due to switching from statins to other lipid-lowering
drugs.
Predictors of Suboptimal Persistence
Results of the multivariate model are shown in Table 2. Long-term use was especially low for patients of black
and other nonwhite races, regardless of socioeconomic status, as well as for
recipients of Medicaid, regardless of race. After adjusting for all other
characteristics studied, black Medicaid recipients had 2.7 times the odds
of suboptimal persistence compared with white PAAD recipients. In addition,
patients 75 years of age and older had 19% greater odds of poor long-term
persistence. Patients treated for depression or dementia were more likely
to have suboptimal persistence, while the opposite was true for those with
hypertension, stroke, CHF, or diabetes. The odds of suboptimal persistence
were slightly higher among patients who were hospitalized in the year prior
to initiating therapy and among those with the greatest number of other prescribed
medications. Patients who resided in a nursing home were significantly more
likely to remain on their prescribed regimen.
Overall, more severe CHD was associated with greater use of statins.
Patients with group 1, group 2, and group 3 evidence of CHD were 14%, 27%,
and 41% less likely, respectively, to have suboptimal persistence, compared
with patients without CHD. However, those who experienced an acute MI had
20% greater odds of suboptimal persistence in the year after the event, compared
with those who did not have any CHD event. A similar but smaller effect was
observed among patients who experienced a group 2 CHD event during follow-up.
Compared with those who began statin therapy in 1990, patients who started
between 1992 and 1993 were about 15% more likely to reduce or omit therapy
during the follow-up period. However, patients who initiated therapy more
recently (1996-1998) were 21% to 25% less likely to stop or reduce their statin
use.
Despite burgeoning evidence of the capacity of lipid-lowering therapy
to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, these findings indicate
that their actual use in typical populations of older patients is likely to
substantially undercut this potential. A better understanding of the magnitude
and predictors of long-term persistence with statins has implications for
the approach to managing individual patients, as well as the design and evaluation
of population-level cardiovascular risk reduction programs. To our knowledge,
this is the first study to observe statin use in routine care settings for
a follow-up period comparable to that of the pivotal statin trials.2-6
Because our cohort was large and typical of many older populations in the
United States, it can suggest the proportion of patients expected to have
suboptimal persistence with statin therapy at a given point in time under
routine conditions. The findings also identify several previously unstudied
patient characteristics that can be used to predict poor persistence.
We found actual persistence to be far less than that reported in trials,
where 5-year cumulative discontinuation rates ranged from just 6% to 30%.2-6
By contrast, we found that only 26% of patients were still taking their regimens
at a high level after 5 years. This finding extends previous works by our
group and by investigators in Australia, who found a 1-year mean of 64% of
days with statin available19 and a 1-year discontinuation
rate of 60%,20 respectively. Our results differ
from those of Andrade et al,21 who found a
1-year discontinuation rate of 15% among patients taking lovastatin in 2 health
maintenance organizations. We also found lower utilization than other practice-based
studies that monitored persistence over extended periods.18,22
Patients in these studies may have remained on their regimens longer because
they were relatively younger, healthier, and of higher socioeconomic status,
or received dietary counseling and lipid clinic-based disease management.
Patients in the latter 2 studies were also informed that their medication
use was being monitored, and one study18 relied
on patient-reported medication use, which overstates actual use.32
Comparing our findings with studies of other chronic medications in
this population, the mean persistence 12 months after an initial statin prescription
(50%) was about the same as the rate we found for antihypertensives (43%),27 but lower than for medication for glaucoma (69%)33 or CHF (70%).34 Rudd24 has pooled data from short-term electronic monitoring
of therapy for several chronic diseases to estimate the frequency distribution
of adherent, partially adherent, and nonadherent patients to be 50% to 60%,
30% to 40%, and 5% to 10%, respectively. Although we observed a similar distribution
in the first 3 months of therapy, long-term persistence was substantially
worse in our cohort. This may have been because electronic pill containers
can serve to increase adherence by raising patients' awareness of their medication-taking
habits.17 In any case, our findings make it
clear that for statins, persistence must be assessed over years rather than
months to realize its true clinical and public health impact.
The predictors of suboptimal persistence identified here add new information
to previous work19 in which we observed lower
persistence among the poorest and oldest patients, as well as those who used
the greatest number of prescription drugs. Our analysis confirms that these
socioeconomic disparities exist in a much larger cohort of statin users and
continue for several years after initiation of therapy. We also found significant
disparities in persistence among black and other nonwhite races, which is
of particular concern because blacks and Mexican-Americans have a higher prevalence
of CHD than whites.1 Patients treated for depression
were also less likely to persist in statin use, consistent with our recent
observation that depressive symptoms correlate with poor persistence with
antihypertensive medications.35
Patients with higher levels of baseline CHD persisted better than their
healthier counterparts, suggesting that these patients' perceived cardiovascular
risk influenced their medication-taking behavior. A history of stroke, CHF,
diabetes, or hypertension also predicted better persistence. By contrast,
those who had an MI after starting statin therapy were significantly less
likely to continue their statin use following the event, perhaps because they
perceived the drug to be ineffective. This finding is alarming given that
clinical trials have shown statins to be most effective when used for secondary
prevention.36
We observed moderately higher persistence among patients who initiated
statin therapy after the publication of pivotal trials in the mid-1990s. This
finding is consistent with those of Jackevicius et al,37
who reported an increase in prescribing of statins among elderly patients
after the publication of the 4S trial.2 This
suggests that the results of major clinical trials may affect patients' decisions
to continue therapy, physicians' persistence in prescribing therapy, or both.
These results should be interpreted in light of some limitations. First,
the study cohort consisted of patients 65 years of age and older, most of
whom were women with moderate to low incomes. Although this population is
representative of many elderly people in the United States, especially those
who receive lipid-lowering medications,14 different
results may have been observed in a more affluent cohort or one that included
more men. Statin therapy may have been discontinued by the prescriber for
clinically appropriate reasons such as adverse drug events, lack of efficacy,
or conversion to nonstatin lipid-lowering therapy. However, lipid-lowering
therapy is most often lifelong, adverse drug events are rare with the statins,
and we found switching from statins to other lipid-lowering medications to
be extremely rare in this population. While we could not measure use of statins
obtained from physician samples or out-of-state pharmacies, these scenarios
are unlikely since this population's prescriptions were provided free of charge
or for a nominal co-payment. In settings where patients must pay for much
or all of their statin therapy out-of-pocket, it is likely that persistence
could be even worse. The poor persistence we observed also cannot be attributed
to death or disenrollment from the payer system because we did not calculate
adherence for the interval in which death occurred, and we required ongoing
use of any medication as evidence of continuous enrollment. The latter requirement
may have misclassified a few nonadherent subjects as disenrolled from their
program; but to the extent that this occurred, the results presented herein
actually underestimate the true statin discontinuation rate.
These data seem to indicate a slight improvement in persistence 9 to
10 years after the earliest members of the cohort began their statin therapy.
However, these findings occurred among surviving, continuously enrolled elderly
patients, or about one third of patients who initiated therapy in 1990-1991.
This may therefore reflect a "survivor effect" among these patients as well
as a secular trend toward improved persistence among all patients at the end
of the decade after the publication of pivotal statin trials.
Our findings have important implications for clinicians and other decision
makers responsible for the appropriate use of lipid-lowering medications.
They make it clear that one cannot assume that long-term persistence in typical
settings will approach the levels observed in prospective trials. Accordingly,
predictions of population-wide health benefits of statin therapy38
based on these trials may be overly optimistic given the poor persistence
we observed. Recent meta-analyses suggest that the most effective persistence-enhancing
interventions for long-term treatments consist of combinations of more convenient
care, information, counseling, reminders, reinforcement, and other forms of
supervision or attention.39-41
Our findings suggest that such interventions should be initiated early in
therapy and targeted to patients most likely to become nonadherent. Given
that our cohort faced little or no out-of-pocket cost for medications, such
interventions should focus on other barriers to persistence. These data contribute
to the evidence that studies demonstrating clinical benefit also improve persistence
of use. Therefore, improving patients' understanding of their cardiovascular
risk, their medication regimen, and the potential benefits of persistence
with statin therapy may further enhance persistence. These and other interventions
to improve persistence deserve further study.
1. 2001 Heart and Stroke Statistical Update . Dallas, Tex: American Heart Association; 2000.
2.The Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study Group. Randomised trial of cholesterol lowering in 4444 patients with coronary
heart disease: the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S).
Lancet.1994;344:1383-1389.Google Scholar 3.Shepherd J, Cobbe SM, Ford I.
et al. for the West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study Group. Prevention of coronary heart disease in men with hypercholesterolemia.
N Engl J Med.1995;333:1301-1307.Google Scholar 4.Sacks FM, Pfeffer MA, Moye LA.
et al. for the Cholesterol and Recurrent Events Trial Investigators. The effect of pravastatin on coronary events after myocardial infarction
in patients with average cholesterol levels.
N Engl J Med.1996;335:1001-1009.Google Scholar 5.The Long-term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischaemic Disease (LIPID)
Study Group. Prevention of cardiovascular events and death with pravastatin in patients
with coronary heart disease and a broad range of initial cholesterol levels.
N Engl J Med.1998;339:1349-1357.Google Scholar 6.Downs JR, Clearfield M, Weis S.
et al. for the AFCAPS/TexCAPS Research Group. Primary prevention of acute coronary events with lovastatin in men
and women with average cholesterol levels: results of AFCAPS/TexCAPS.
JAMA.1998;279:1615-1622.Google Scholar 8.Miettinen TA, Pyorala K, Olsson AG.
et al. Cholesterol-lowering therapy in women and elderly patients with myocardial
infarction or angina pectoris: findings from the Scandinavian Simvastatin
Survival Study (4S).
Circulation.1997;96:4211-4218.Google Scholar 9.Hunt D, Young P, Simes J.
et al. Benefits of pravastatin on cardiovascular events and mortality in older
patients with coronary heart disease are equal to or exceed those seen in
younger patients: results from the LIPID trial.
Ann Intern Med.2001;134:931-940.Google Scholar 10.Lewis SJ, Moye LA, Sacks FM.
et al. Effect of pravastatin on cardiovascular events in older patients with
myocardial infarction and cholesterol levels in the average range: results
of the Cholesterol and Recurrent Events (CARE) Trial.
Ann Intern Med.1998;129:681-689.Google Scholar 11.Fedder DO, Koro CE, L'Italien GJ. New National Cholesterol Education Program III guidelines for primary
prevention lipid-lowering drug therapy.
Circulation.2002;105:152.Google Scholar 12.Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood
Cholesterol in Adults. Executive summary of the Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education
Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High
Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III).
JAMA.2001;285:2486-2497.Google Scholar 13.Jackevicius CA, Anderson GM, Leiter L, Tu JV. Use of the statins in patients after acute myocardial infarction.
Arch Intern Med.2001;161:183-188.Google Scholar 14.McCormick D, Gurwitz JH, Lessard D.
et al. Use of aspirin, β-blockers, and lipid-lowering medications before
recurrent acute myocardial infarction.
Arch Intern Med.1999;159:561-567.Google Scholar 15.Lemaitre RN, Furberg CD, Newman AB.
et al. Time trends in the use of cholesterol-lowering agents in older adults:
the Cardiovascular Health Study.
Arch Intern Med.1998;158:1761-1768.Google Scholar 16.Majumdar SR, Gurwitz JH, Soumerai SB. Undertreatment of hyperlipidemia in the secondary prevention of coronary
artery disease.
J Gen Intern Med.1999;14:711-717.Google Scholar 17.Schwed A, Fallab CL, Burnier M.
et al. Electronic monitoring of compliance to lipid-lowering therapy in clinical
practice.
J Clin Pharmacol.1999;39:402-409.Google Scholar 18.Eriksson M, Hadell K, Holme I.
et al. Compliance with and efficacy of treatment with pravastatin and cholestyramine.
J Intern Med.1998;243:373-380.Google Scholar 19.Avorn J, Monette J, Lacour A.
et al. Persistence of use of lipid-lowering medications: a cross-national
study.
JAMA.1998;279:1458-1462.Google Scholar 20.Simons LA, Levis G, Simons J. Apparent discontinuation rates in patients prescribed lipid-lowering
drugs.
Med J Aust.1996;164:208-211.Google Scholar 21.Andrade SE, Walker AM, Gottlieb LK.
et al. Discontinuation of antihyperlipidemic drugs—do rates reported
in clinical trials reflect rates in primary care settings?
N Engl J Med.1995;332:1125-1131.Google Scholar 22.Hiatt JG, Shamsie SG, Schectman G. Discontinuation rates of cholesterol-lowering medications.
Am J Manag Care.1999;5:437-444.Google Scholar 23.Redelmeier DA, Tan SH, Booth GL. The treatment of unrelated disorders in patients with chronic medical
diseases.
N Engl J Med.1998;338:1516-1520.Google Scholar 24.Rudd P. Compliance with antihypertensive therapy: a shifting paradigm.
Cardiol Rev.1994;2:230-240.Google Scholar 25.Insull W. The problem of compliance to cholesterol altering therapy.
J Intern Med.1997;241:317-325.Google Scholar 26.Monane M, Bohn RL, Gurwitz JH.
et al. Compliance with antihypertensive therapy among elderly Medicaid enrollees.
Am J Public Health.1996;86:1805-1808.Google Scholar 27.Monane M, Bohn RL, Gurwitz JH, Glynn RJ, Levin R, Avorn J. The effects of initial drug choice and comorbidity on antihypertensive
therapy compliance.
Am J Hypertens.1997;10:697-704.Google Scholar 28.Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal
studies: development and validation.
J Chronic Dis.1987;40:373-383.Google Scholar 29.Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative
databases.
J Clin Epidemiol.1992;45:613-619.Google Scholar 30.Liang KY, Zeger SL. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models.
Biometrika.1986;73:13-22.Google Scholar 31. SAS version 8.2. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc; 2000.
32.Choo PW, Rand CS, Inui TS.
et al. Validation of patient reports, automated pharmacy records, and pill
counts with electronic monitoring of adherence to antihypertensive therapy.
Med Care.1999;37:846-857.Google Scholar 33.Gurwitz JH, Glynn RJ, Monane M.
et al. Treatment for glaucoma: adherence by the elderly.
Am J Public Health.1993;83:711-716.Google Scholar 34.Monane M, Bohn RL, Gurwitz JH, Glynn RJ, Avorn J. Noncompliance with congestive heart failure therapy in the elderly.
Arch Intern Med.1994;154:2109-2110.Google Scholar 35.Wang PJ, Bohn RL, Knight E, Glynn RJ, Mogun H, Avorn J. Noncompliance with antihypertensive medications: the impact of depressive
symptoms and psychosocial factors.
J Gen Intern Med.In press.Google Scholar 36.La Rosa JC, He J, Vupputuri S. Effect of statins on risk of coronary disease: a meta-analysis of randomized
controlled trials.
JAMA.1999;282:2340-2346.Google Scholar 37.Jackevicius CA, Anderson GM, Leiter L, Vu JV. Use of the statins in patients after acute myocardial infarction: does
evidence change practice?
Arch Intern Med.2001;161:183-188.Google Scholar 38.Brier KL, Tornow JJ, Ries AJ, Weber MP, Downs JR. Forecasting patient outcomes in the management of hyperlipidemia.
Arch Intern Med.1999;159:569-575.Google Scholar 39.Haynes RB, McKibbon KA, Kanani R. Systematic review of randomised trials of interventions to assist patients
to follow prescriptions for medications.
Lancet.1996;348:383-386.Google Scholar 40.Burke LE, Dunbar-Jacob JM, Hill MN. Compliance with cardiovascular disease prevention strategies: a review
of the research.
Ann Behav Med.1997;19:239-263.Google Scholar 41.Roter DL, Hall JA, Merisca R.
et al. Effectiveness of interventions to improve patient compliance: a meta-analysis.
Med Care.1998;36:1138-1161.Google Scholar