Dataset Information

Interventions to increase adherence in patients taking immunosuppressive drugs after kidney transplantation: a systematic review of controlled trials.

ABSTRACT: Immunosuppressive drugs have to be taken through the whole duration of kidney transplant survival to avoid rejection. Low adherence can increase the risk of allograft rejection. The objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of adherence-enhancing interventions (AEI) in kidney transplantation recipients taking immunosuppressive drugs.A search was performed in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. The search was performed in May 2016. We included comparative studies on AEI for kidney transplant recipients taking immunosuppressive drugs. The primary outcome was medication adherence. All identified articles were screened according to the predefined inclusion criteria. The risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Study selection and risk of bias assessment were performed by two reviewers independently. Data were extracted in standardized tables. Data extraction was verified by a second reviewer. All discrepancies were resolved through discussion. Data were synthesized in a structured narrative way. There is no registered or published protocol for this systematic review.We identified 12 studies. The number of participants ranged from 24 to 1830. Nine studies included adults, two children, and one adults and children. Risk of bias was high. The main reasons for high risk of bias were inadequate allocation sequence (confounding) and that studies were not blinded. Eleven studies evaluated AEI consisting of educational and/or behavioral components. All these studies showed an effect direction in favor of the intervention. Intervention effect was only moderate. Most adherence measures in studies on educational and behavioral interventions showed statistically significant differences. Studies that combined educational and behavioral intervention components showed larger effects. All studies that were statistically significant were multimodal. Studies that included an individualized component and more intensive interventions showed larger effects. One study evaluated a reminder system. Effect size was not reported. This study showed no statistical significant difference (p >?0.05).Educational and behavioral AEI can increase adherence. In particular, multimodal and individualized interventions seem promising. However, because of the small effect, the high risk of bias, and the invalidity of adherence measures, the actual benefit of adherence interventions for an unselected patient population (i.e., including also adherent patients) seems limited. No conclusion is possible for interventions combining adherence-enhancing components that address intentional (behavioral) as well as unintentional adherence (reminder).

SUBMITTER: Mathes T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5707897 | biostudies-other | 2017 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Interventions to increase adherence in patients taking immunosuppressive drugs after kidney transplantation: a systematic review of controlled trials.

Mathes Tim T Großpietsch Kirsten K Neugebauer Edmund A M EAM Pieper Dawid D

Systematic reviews 20171129 1

<h4>Background</h4>Immunosuppressive drugs have to be taken through the whole duration of kidney transplant survival to avoid rejection. Low adherence can increase the risk of allograft rejection. The objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of adherence-enhancing interventions (AEI) in kidney transplantation recipients taking immunosuppressive drugs.<h4>Methods</h4>A search was performed in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. The search was performed in May 2016. We included comparative s ...[more]

PMID: 29187249

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundImmunosuppressant non-adherence is a widespread problem among solid organ recipients. With the newly published clinical trials, the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) based systematic review of adherence-enhancing interventions on immunosuppressant adherence in solid organ recipients has not been completed. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we compared the efficacy of adherence-enhancing interventions versus routine intervention, as performed with RCTs, on immunosuppressant adherence in solid organ transplantation recipients.MethodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL full text, and PsycINFO were searched from database inception to December 2019. This review was conducted following the PRISMA's reporting guidelines and according to the principles recommended by Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review.ResultsThe search yielded 10,479 articles. A total of 27 articles (26 studies) with 715 participants were included in our analysis. Results from the meta-analysis revealed that as compared with that of the routine intervention group, the rates of overall adherence, dosing adherence, and timing adherence were significantly increased within the adherence-enhancing intervention group, with the pooled risk ratio (RR) of overall adherence = 1.17, [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07 to 1.28; p = 0.0006]; RR of dosing adherence = 1.21 (95% CI: 1.08 to 1.36, p = 0.001); RR of timing adherence = 1.16 (95% CI: 1.03 to 1.29, p = 0.01). There was a significantly increased adherence score in the adherence-enhancing intervention group; however, no statistical significance on the immunosuppressant blood concentration was found between the two study groups. Results obtained from a subgroup analysis shown interventions led by a multidisciplinary team, both the assessment time at 6 months and 12 months demonstrated a significantly increased adherence rate in the intervention group compared with the control group.ConclusionsThe findings of this report indicate that clinicians (doctors and nurses) should maintain a long-term intervention protocol to ensure immunosuppressant adherence within solid organ transplant recipients. To accomplish this goal, we recommend a multidisciplinary team-led, comprehensive intervention approach combined with mobile health monitoring for the administration of an effective immunosuppressive therapy regimen.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Concerns exist over the extrapolation of bioavailability studies of generic immunosuppressive drugs in healthy volunteers, regarding their efficacy and safety in kidney transplant recipients. We conducted a meta-analysis of trials examining the bioavailability of generic (test) immunosuppressive drugs relative to their brand (reference) counterparts in healthy volunteers, based on the US Food and Drug Administration requirements for approval of generics, and their efficacy and safety in kidney transplant recipients. METHODS:Eligible studies were identified in PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and conference abstracts. RESULTS:Twenty crossover trials of healthy volunteers (n = 641) and 6 parallel-arm randomized controlled trials of kidney transplant recipients (n = 594) were identified. The 90% CI of the pooled test-to-reference drug ratio for maximum or peak plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the plasma concentration time-curve from time 0 to time of last determinable concentration (AUC(0-t)) fell within the required range (0.80-1.25) for cyclosporine (Cmax 0.91; 90% CI 0.86-0.95; and AUC(0-t) 0.97; 90% CI 0.94-1.00), tacrolimus (Cmax 1.17; 90% CI 1.09-1.24; and AUC(0-t) 1.00; 90% CI 0.97-1.03) and mycophenolate mofetil (Cmax 0.98; 90% CI 0.96-1.01; and AUC(0-t) 1.00; 90% CI 0.99-1.01). In subgroup analyses, some generic cyclosporine formulations did not meet criteria for bioequivalence. No significant differences were observed in the time to maximum plasma concentration and terminal plasma half-life between generic and brand drugs. In parallel-arm trials, generic cyclosporine was non-inferior to brand counterpart in terms of acute allograft rejection, infections, and death. CONCLUSIONS:Not all generic immunosuppressive drugs have similar relative bioavailability to their brand name counterparts. Evidence on their efficacy and safety is inconclusive. Tighter regulatory requirement for approval of generic drugs with narrow therapeutic index is needed.

Project description:BackgroundThe relative risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) following different infections, and whether angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) modify the risk, is unclear. We aimed to determine the risks of hospital admission with AKI following infections (urinary tract infection [UTI], lower respiratory tract infection [LRTI], and gastroenteritis) among users of antihypertensive drugs.MethodsWe used UK electronic health records from practices contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to the Hospital Episode Statistics database. We identified adults initiating ACEIs/ARBs or alternative antihypertensive therapy (β-blockers, calcium channel blockers, or thiazide diuretics) between April 1997 and March 2014 with at least 1 year of primary care registration prior to first prescription, who had a hospital admission for AKI, and who had a primary care record for incident UTI, LRTI, or gastroenteritis. We used a self-controlled case series design to calculate age-adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for AKI during risk periods following acute infection relative to noninfected periods (baseline).ResultsWe identified 10,219 eligible new users of ACEIs/ARBs or other antihypertensives with an AKI record. Among these, 2,012 had at least one record for a UTI during follow-up, 2,831 had a record for LRTI, and 651 had a record for gastroenteritis. AKI risk was higher following infection than in baseline noninfectious periods. The rate ratio was highest following gastroenteritis: for the period 1-7 days postinfection, the IRR for AKI following gastroenteritis was 43.4 (95% CI=34.0-55.5), compared with 6.0 following LRTI (95% CI=5.0-7.3), and 9.3 following UTI (95% CI=7.8-11.2). Increased risks were similar for different antihypertensives.ConclusionAcute infections are associated with substantially increased transient AKI risk among antihypertensive users, with the highest risk after gastroenteritis. The increase in relative risk is not greater among users of ACEIs/ARBs compared with users of other antihypertensives.

Project description:BackgroundKidney transplant recipients' poor medication adherence and poor control of comorbidities, particularly hypertension, are risk factors for graft rejection, graft loss, and death. Few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been successful in improving sustained medication adherence and blood pressure control among kidney transplantation recipients. We provide rationale for an RCT evaluating a mobile health medical self-management system for kidney transplantation recipients called Smartphone Medication Adherence Saves Kidneys (SMASK).ObjectiveOur objective is to determine whether SMASK is efficacious in improving medication adherence and sustaining blood pressure control among kidney transplantation recipients with uncontrolled hypertension and poor medication adherence compared to an enhanced standard care.MethodsThis two-arm, 6-month, phase II single-site efficacy RCT will involve 80 kidney transplantation recipients. Participants will be randomly assigned to the SMASK intervention arm or control arm. SMASK includes multilevel components: automated reminders from an electronic medication tray; tailored text messages and motivational feedback, guided by the self-determination theory; and automated summary reports for providers. Evaluations will be conducted preintervention, at 3 and 6 months, and posttrial at 12 months. Specific aims are to test the hypotheses that compared to standard care, the SMASK cohort will demonstrate significantly improved changes at 3, 6, and 12 months in the primary outcome variables medication adherence (proportion with electronic monitor-derived score >0.90) and blood pressure control (proportion meeting and sustaining adherence to the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes [KDIGO] guidelines for blood pressure control); the secondary outcome variables provider adherence to KDIGO guidelines, measured by timing of medication changes and changes in self-determination theory constructs; and the exploratory outcome variables estimated glomerular filtration rate, variability in calcineurin inhibitor trough levels, and proportion of patients meeting and sustaining the 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure below 130/80 mm Hg. After the 6-month evaluation, interviews with a random sample of SMASK subjects (n=20) and health care providers (n=3-5) will assess user reactions including acceptability, usability, and aids/barriers to sustainability. Data from the RCT and interviews will be triangulated to further refine and optimize SMASK and prepare for a multisite effectiveness RCT.ResultsThe SMASK project received funding from National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases in June 2016, obtained institutional review board approval in April 2016, and began data collection in July 2016. As of July 2018, we completed enrollment with a total of 80 participants.ConclusionsThis study will provide data regarding the efficacy of SMASK to improve medication adherence and blood pressure control in a cohort of hypertensive kidney transplant recipients. An efficacious SMASK intervention will pave the way for a larger, multicenter, effectiveness RCT powered sufficiently to evaluate clinical events in a real-world setting and with the potential to demonstrate improved outcomes at lower cost than standard care.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/13351.

Dataset Information

Interventions to increase adherence in patients taking immunosuppressive drugs after kidney transplantation: a systematic review of controlled trials.

Publications

Interventions to increase adherence in patients taking immunosuppressive drugs after kidney transplantation: a systematic review of controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets