HLA class I haplotypes in families of children with coeliac disease.

OBJECTIVE

To describe an approach for using claims data to compare the effectiveness of 2 similar drugs used for similar indications within a health maintenance organization.

STUDY

DESIGN

A database study comparing the effectiveness of amlodipine and nifedipine CC in the initial treatment of hypertension.

PATIENTS AND

METHODS

The claims records of Pennsylvania Medicaid patients between 18 and 64 years of age with continuous eligibility in 1994 were studied. Pharmacy, hospital, and outpatient claims data were merged, and adult patients receiving the target drugs for the specified indication were identified. The effectiveness of the 2 agents used were compared based on the concept that a change in dispensed medication suggested either an adverse event or lack of effectiveness. Adherence rates, adverse events, and pharmacy and nonpharmacy costs associated with the 2 agents were also compared.

RESULTS

Patients receiving amlodipine and nifedipine CC as initial treatment for hypertension had similar demographic characteristics and numbers of comorbid conditions. More patients started on nifedipine CC switched to another calcium channel blocker (15.8% for nifedipine CC vs 10.3% for amlodipine). More patients started on amlodipine switched to another class of antihypertensive agent (13.2% for amlodipine vs 7.3% for nifedipine CC). Patients in both groups received adjunctive antihypertensive drugs at a similar frequency (35% for nifedipine CC vs 42%, for amlodipine). Rates of adherence were similar. In adherent patients, there was no difference in rates of reported adverse events. The nonpharmacy costs were similar between groups. Patients in the amlodipine group also had a trend toward higher overall pharmacy charges (all medications) and higher charges for antihypertensive medications other than the study drugs ($302 vs $188, P = .054).

CONCLUSIONS

Claims data are often the best available evidence for comparing the effectiveness of pharmaceuticals in real clinical practice. While these comparisons have inherent limitations, the accuracy of the assessment can be maximized by limiting the assessment to agents with the same specific indications. Other important elements include comparison of crossover rates to other pharmaceuticals in the same class; rates of addition of other pharmaceuticals in the same class, adherence, adverse events, and overall healthcare charges.