Search

This study aimed to assess the prevalence and reasons for nonadherence to cotrimoxazole prophylaxis therapy. A cross-sectional study was conducted among people living with HIV attending Ayder Comprehensive Specialized Hospital. Data were collected through interviews and reviews of medical records. Binary logistic regression was employed to analyze factors associated with CPT nonadherence. Approximately two-thirds (65.5%) of the participants were non-adherent to co-trimoxazole prophylaxis therapy. The main reasons for non-adherence were side effects, pill fatigue and forgetfulness. Strategies to improve adherence to co-trimoxazole prophylaxis therapy should focus on the combined patient, clinical and medication related issues of people living with HIV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Standard oral cancer chemotherapy (OCT) or targeted therapy (OTT) has expanded the treatment methods for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, its principal nonadherence causes a reduction in efficacy. We aimed to evaluate the status of nonadherence and influencing factors among outpatient patients with HCC. Patients and methods: In 2021, a prospective observational study was conducted on 384 patients with either old or newly diagnosed HCC treated with OTT. Nonadherence to OCT was determined using the eight-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale, with a score < 6 points. The patients were finished with a six-month follow-up investigation by questionnaires. Results: 54,8% of HCC outpatients were nonadherent to OCT, with a mean Morisky score of 5.19. They dropped out of the treatment mainly because of drug side effects, such as fatigue (72.4%), hand-foot syndrome (42.7%), diarrhea (38.3%), nausea (25%), insomnia (24.7%), abdominal pain (12%), and anxiety about these adverse events (65.9%). Additionally, financial difficulties and low relative copayments were significantly correlated with the noncompliant treatment of patients (OR = 2.29, 95% CI = 1.32–3.98, P = 0.003; OR = 4.36, 95% CI = 0.95–19.93, P = 0.039, respectively). Moreover, inadequate individual information about the clinical course, the art of treatment, and medication usage instructions were suggestive barriers to adherence to treatment (OR = 1.96, 95% CI = 1.08–3.55, P = 0.024; OR = 1.86, 95% CI = 1.1–3.14, P = 0.02; OR = 2.34, 95% CI = 1.29–4.26, P = 0.004, respectively). Finally, a low level of trust in doctors was an essential factor in nonadherence (Mean of the Anderson Trust in Physician Scale scores counted 38.12 vs. 43.97, respectively for non-adherence vs. adherence, P = 0.00001). Conclusions: This study suggests a high rate of primary nonadherence to standard oral targeted therapy among HCC outpatient patients because of drug side effects, patient awareness of treatment, and lack of confidence in healthcare providers. Close supervision, proper medication instructions, appropriate dosage reductions, and comprehensive patient counseling might be necessary to control nonadherence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Adherence to antiretroviral treatment (ART) remains the cornerstone of optimal HIV outcomes, including viral suppression (VS), immune recovery, and decreased transmission risk. For many people with HIV (PWH), particularly those with early-acquired HIV, structural, behavioral, and cognitive barriers to adherence and competing priorities related to life events may be difficult to overcome, resulting in nonadherence. Long-acting injectable antiretroviral therapies (LAI-ART) may be a useful strategy to overcome some of these barriers. However, to date, the approved LAI-ART strategies (e.g., cabotegravir and rilpivirine (CAB/RPV)) have targeted those who have already attained viral suppression, precluding their use in the 40% of adolescents and young adults (AYA) that VS has eluded. Case presentation: Ms. X is a 30-year-old woman with perinatally-acquired HIV and barriers to adherence. Despite many interventions, she remained persistently viremic, with resultant immune suppression and multiple comorbid opportunistic conditions, and viral load (VL) > 10,000,000 copies/ml. Given her longstanding history of poor adherence to an oral regimen, a switch to monthly intramuscular (IM) injections and biweekly infusions of ibalizumab were initiated leading to decreased viral load to 8,110 copies/ml within two weeks. Ms. H is a 33-year-old woman with cognitive limitations due to childhood lead poisoning. Her viral load trajectory took a downward turn, precipitated by various life events, remaining elevated despite intensive case management. Initiation of LAI-ART (CAB/RPV) in this patient led to an undetectable VL (< 20 copies/ml) within two months of treatment initiation. Miss Y. is a 37-year-old woman with perinatally-acquired HIV and chronic challenges with nonadherence and longstanding immunosuppression with CD4 < 200 cells/mm3 for > 5 years. She received a 1-month oral lead-in (OLI) of cabotegravir/rilpivirine, followed by the injectable loading dose. She has since adhered to all her monthly dosing appointments, sustained VS, and transitioned to a bi-monthly injection schedule. Conclusion: These three individuals with HIV (perinatally and non-perinatally acquired) with longstanding nonadherence and persistent viremia were successfully initiated on LAI-ART through the process of care coordination and the collective efforts of the care team, highlighting the barriers, challenges, and the multidisciplinary coordination needed to assure successful implementation of this strategy for the most vulnerable of patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Two-stage least square [2SLS] and two-stage residual inclusion [2SRI] are popularly used instrumental variable (IV) methods to address medication nonadherence in pragmatic trials with point treatment settings. These methods require assumptions, e.g., exclusion restriction, although they are known to handle unmeasured confounding. The newer IV-method, nonparametric causal bound [NPCB], showed promise in reducing uncertainty compared to usual IV-methods. The inverse probability-weighted per-protocol [IP-weighted PP] method is useful in the same setting but requires different assumptions, e.g., no unmeasured confounding. Although all of these methods are aimed to address the same nonadherence problem, comprehensive simulations to compare performances of them are absent in the literature.Methods: We performed extensive simulations to compare the performances of the above methods in addressing nonadherence when: (1) exclusion restriction satisfied and no unmeasured confounding, (2) exclusion restriction is met but unmeasured confounding present, and (3) exclusion restriction is violated. Our simulations varied parameters such as, levels of adherence rates, unmeasured confounding, and exclusion restriction violations. Risk differences were estimated, and we compared performances in terms of bias, standard error (SE), mean squared error (MSE), and 95% confidence interval coverage probability.Results: For setting (1), 2SLS and 2SRI have small bias and nominal coverage. IP-weighted PP outperforms these IV-methods in terms of smaller MSE but produces high MSE when nonadherence is very high. For setting (2), IP-weighted-PP generally performs poorly compared to 2SLS and 2SRI in term of bias, and both-stages adjusted IV-methods improve precision than naive IV-methods. For setting (3), IV-methods perform worst in all scenarios, and IP-weighted-PP produces unbiased estimates and small MSE when confounders are adjusted. NPCB produces larger uncertainty bound width in almost all scenarios. We also analyze a two-arm trial to estimate vitamin-A supplementation effect on childhood mortality after addressing nonadherence.Conclusions: Understanding finite sample characteristics of these methods will guide future researchers in determining suitable analysis strategies. Since assumptions are different and often untestable for IP-weighted PP and IV methods, we suggest analyzing data using both IP-weighted PP and IV approaches in search of a robust conclusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Management of heart failure is complex and multifaceted but adherence to medications remains the cornerstone of preventing avoidable readmissions, premature deaths, and unnecessary healthcare expenses. Despite of evidence-based efficacy on anti-failure drugs, poor adherence is pervasive and remains a significant barrier to improving clinical outcomes in heart failure population. Results: We enrolled 459 patients with diagnosis of heart failure admitted at a tertiary cardiovascular hospital in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The mean age was 46.4 years, there was a female predominance (56.5%), 67.5% resided in urban areas and 74.2% had primary education. Of the 419 participants eligible for assessment of medication adherence, 313 (74.7%) had poor adherence and 106 (25.3%) had good adherence. Possession of a health insurance was found to be the strongest associated factor for adherence (adjusted OR 8.7, 95% CI 4.7–16.0, p < 0.001). Participants with poor adherence displayed a 70% increased risk for rehospitalization compared to their counterparts with good adherence (adjusted RR 1.7, 95% CI 1.2–2.9, p = 0.04). Poor adherence was found to be the strongest predictor of early mortality (HR 2.5, 95% CI 1.3–4.6, p < 0.01). In conclusion, Poor medication adherence in patients with heart failure is associated with increased readmissions and mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: When a randomised trial is subject to deviations from randomised treatment, analysis according to intention-to-treat does not estimate two important quantities: relative treatment efficacy and effectiveness in a setting different from that in the trial. Even in trials of a predominantly pragmatic nature, there may be numerous reasons to consider the extent, and impact on analysis, of such deviations from protocol. Simple methods such as per-protocol or as-treated analyses, which exclude or censor patients on the basis of their adherence, usually introduce selection and confounding biases. However, there exist appropriate causal estimation methods which seek to overcome these inherent biases, but these methods remain relatively unfamiliar and are rarely implemented in trials.Methods: This paper demonstrates when it may be of interest to look beyond intention-to-treat analysis for answers to alternative causal research questions through illustrative case studies. We seek to guide trialists on how to handle treatment changes in the design, conduct and planning the analysis of a trial; these changes may be planned or unplanned, and may or may not be permitted in the protocol. We highlight issues that must be considered at the trial planning stage relating to: the definition of nonadherence and the causal research question of interest, trial design, data collection, monitoring, statistical analysis and sample size.Results and Conclusions: During trial planning, trialists should define their causal research questions of interest, anticipate the likely extent of treatment changes and use these to inform trial design, including the extent of data collection and data monitoring. A series of concise recommendations is presented to guide trialists when considering undertaking causal analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Nonadherence to diet and physical activity is a major problem in the management of diabetes mellitus and its complications. This study was undertaken to measure the factors associated with nonadherence to diet and physical activity advice among Nepalese type 2 diabetic patients. Methods: An analytical cross-sectional study was conducted among type 2 diabetic patients (age, M ± SD, 54.4 ± 11.5 yrs) and interviewed using three days recall method for dietary history and Compendium of Physical Activity for physical activity. Data were analysed by univariate and multivariate statistics. Results: Out of 385 patients, 87.5% were nonadherent and 12.5% poorly adherent to dietary advice. 42.1% were nonadherent, 36.6% partially adherent while 21.3% good adherent to physical activity. Adherence to dietary advice was higher in males than females (M ± SD, 33 ± 16.7 vs 27 ± 15.5, p = 0.001), those staying nearer to hospital than farther (M ± SD, 32 ± 18.6 vs 28 ± 13.5, p = 0.013), those advice by physician than others (p = 0.001) and from nuclear family than joint and extended (p = 0.001). With increasing age, dietary advice adherence decreased (p = 0.06) and was positively correlated with the knowledge about diabetes mellitus (r = 0.115, p = 0.024). Physical activity adherence was higher in those with positive family history of diabetes than others (M ± SD, 74 ± 24.2 vs 65 ± 23.6, p = 0.001), upper middle socioeconomic class respondents than lower ones (p = 0.047) and from extended family than nuclear or joint ones (p = 0.041). Divorced were more nonadherent to physical activity than married and widowed patients (p = 0.021). Conclusions: Determinants of nonadherence to dietary advice: Female gender, increasing age, joint or extended family members, farther distance from hospital, poor knowledge about diabetes mellitus and advice by others than physicians. Determinants for nonadherence to physical activity: negative family history of DM, divorced status, lower socioeconomic class. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This review aimed to ascertain the extent to which nonadherence to treatment protocol is reported and addressed in a cohort of published analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). One hundred publications of RCTs, randomly selected from those published in BMJ, New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association and The Lancet during 2008, were reviewed to determine the extent and nature of reported nonadherence to treatment protocol, and whether statistical methods were used to examine the effect of such nonadherence on both benefit and harms analyses. We also assessed the quality of trial reporting of treatment protocol nonadherence and the quality of reporting of the statistical analysis methods used to investigate such nonadherence. Nonadherence to treatment protocol was reported in 98 of the 100 trials, but reporting on such nonadherence was often vague or incomplete. Forty-two publications did not state how many participants started their randomised treatment. Reporting of treatment initiation and completeness was judged to be inadequate in 64% of trials with short-term interventions and 89% of trials with long-term interventions. More than half (51) of the 98 trials with treatment protocol nonadherence implemented some statistical method to address this issue, most commonly based on per protocol analysis (46) but often labelled as intention to treat (ITT) or modified ITT (23 analyses in 22 trials). The composition of analysis sets for their benefit outcomes were not explained in 57% of trials, and 62% of trials that presented harms analyses did not define harms analysis populations. The majority of defined harms analysis populations (18 out of 26 trials, 69%) were based on actual treatment received, while the majority of trials with undefined harms analysis populations (31 out of 43 trials, 72%) appeared to analyse harms using the ITT approach. Adherence to randomised intervention is poorly considered in the reporting and analysis of published RCTs. The majority of trials are subject to various forms of nonadherence to treatment protocol, and though trialists deal with this nonadherence using a variety of statistical methods and analysis populations, they rarely consider the potential for bias introduced. There is a need for increased awareness of more appropriate causal methods to adjust for departures from treatment protocol, as well as guidance on the appropriate analysis population to use for harms outcomes in the presence of such nonadherence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]