Search

Improving mid‐term and long‐term outcomes after solid organ transplantation is imperative, and requires both state‐of‐the‐art transplant surgery and optimization of routine, evidence‐based aftercare. This randomized, controlled trial assessed the effectiveness of standard aftercare versus telemedically supported case management, an innovative aftercare model, in 46 living‐donor renal transplant recipients during the first posttransplant year. The model includes three components: (i) chronic care case management initiated after discharge, (ii) case management initiated in emerging acute care situations, and (iii) a telemedically equipped team comprising a transplant nurse case manager and two senior transplant physicians (nephrologist, surgeon). Analyses revealed a reduction of unplanned inpatient acute care, with considerable cost reductions, in the intervention group. The prevalence of nonadherence over the 1‐year study period was 17.4% in the intervention group versus 56.5% in the standard aftercare group (p = 0.013). Only the intervention group achieved their pre‐agreed levels of adherence, disease‐specific quality of life, and return to employment. This comparative effectiveness study provides the basis for multicenter study testing of telemedically supported case management with the aim of optimizing posttransplant aftercare. The trial was registered with the German Clinical Trials Register (www.DRKS.de), DKRS00007634. A randomized controlled trial in living‐donor renal transplant recipients testing the effectiveness of telemedically supported case management during the first posttransplant year to optimize routine evidence‐based aftercare shows a reduction in healthcare utilization, reduced healthcare costs, lower nonadherence, and better disease‐specific quality of life in the intervention group compared to the standard‐of‐care group.

This report is a summary of a 'Consensus Conference' on nonadherence (NA) to immunosuppressants. Its aims were: (1) to discuss the state-of-the-art on the definition, prevalence and measurement of NA, its risk factors and impact on clinical and economical outcomes and interventions and (2) to provide recommendations for future studies. A two-day meeting was held in Florida in January 2008, inviting 66 medical and allied health adherence transplant and nontransplant experts. A scientific committee prepared the meeting. Consensus was reached using plenary and interactive presentations and discussions in small break-out groups. Plenary presenters prepared a summary beforehand. Break-out group leaders initiated discussion between the group members prior to the meeting using conference calls and e-mail and provided a summary afterward. Conclusions were that NA: (a) is more prevalent than we assume; (b) is hard to measure accurately; (c) tends to confer worse outcomes; (d) happens for a number of reasons, and system-related factors including the patient's culture, the healthcare provider and the setting and (e) it is not currently known how to improve adherence. This consensus report provided some roadmaps for future studies on this complicated, multifaceted problem.

Valid assessment of immunosuppressive therapy non-adherence (NAH) is vital: NAH is associated with negative transplantation outcomes. We studied the diagnostic accuracy of assay, patient self-reports and clinicians' collateral reports and composite adherence scores using electronic monitoring (EM) as a reference standard.

Non-adherence with immunosuppressive regimen is a major risk factor for poor outcome after kidney transplantation. Identifying patients at risk for non-adherence requires understanding the risk factors for non-adherence. This prospective study included a convenience sample of 249 adult kidney transplant patients >1 year post-transplant. Non-adherence was monitored electronically using MEMS®. Selected socio-economic, therapy-, patient-, condition- and healthcare team-related risk factors for non-adherence were assessed. Period prevalences were expressed as the percent of prescribed doses taken (taking adherence), the percent of correctly dosed days (dosing adherence), the percentage of inter-dose intervals not exceeding 25% of the prescribed interval (timing adherence), and the number of drug holidays per 100 days (no intake for > 48 h if once daily or for > 24 h if twice daily intake). Testing occurred by simple mixed logistic regression analysis. Factors significant after correction for multiple testing were entered into a multiple logistic regression model. Mean taking, dosing, timing adherence, and drug holidays were 98%, 96%, 93%, and 1.1 days, respectively. Non-adherence was associated with lower self-efficacy, higher self-reported non-adherence, no pillbox usage, and male gender. Adherence declined between Monday and Sunday. This study provides a framework for identifying patients at risk for non-adherence and for developing adherence-enhancing interventions.

Purpose:Effectiveness of clinical glaucoma treatment may be dependent on the patient's adherence (A) with eye drop treatment. The relation between non-adherence (NA) and intraocular pressure (IOP) is not yet well understood, due to methodological weaknesses in the studies performed so far. The goal of this study was to investigate the association between NA with eye drop treatment, IOP and degree of visual field (VF) defects in a large sample of glaucoma patients.