Comparison of Medication Adherence Assessment Tools to Identify Glaucoma Medication Nonadherence.
Electronically monitored medication adherence
Glaucoma
Screening medication nonadherence
Self-reported medication adherence
Journal
Ophthalmology. Glaucoma
ISSN: 2589-4196
Titre abrégé: Ophthalmol Glaucoma
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101730510
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
received:
27
05
2021
revised:
15
07
2021
accepted:
28
07
2021
pubmed:
7
8
2021
medline:
22
4
2022
entrez:
6
8
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To assess the accuracy of 5 subjective self-assessment tools (3 adherence measures and 2 psychometric scales) and pharmacy refill data in predicting objective electronically monitored nonadherence. Prospective cohort study. Glaucoma patients (> 40 years old, >1 medication with poor self-reported adherence) were recruited from University of Michigan Kellogg Eye Center for a study assessing the impact of a personalized glaucoma coaching program on medication adherence. Participants completed an initial assessment including 5 self-assessment tools and a 3-month period of electronic monitoring of glaucoma medication adherence (AdhereTech); pharmacy refill data were obtained. Electronically monitored adherence was calculated monthly as the percentage of doses taken on time. The median of these adherence rates was designated as baseline adherence. Patients with adherence of ≤80% by electronic monitoring were considered nonadherent. Self-assessment tools were scored, and pharmacy refill data were summarized as the proportion of days covered. Correlation between measures of adherence was estimated with Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients. Receiver operating characteristic curves, including estimation of area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were used to compare measures of adherence with respect to predicting electronically monitored nonadherence. Accuracy of self-reported and pharmacy refill data adherence measures in predicting electronically monitored nonadherence. Ninety-five patients completed 3 months of electronic monitoring with a median monthly adherence of 74 (± 21%); 53 patients (56%) were nonadherent. Pharmacy refill data were not correlated significantly with electronically monitored medication adherence (r = 0.12; P = 0.2). Of all the measures, a single-item adherence question ("Over the past month, what percentage of your drops do you think you took correctly?") showed the largest correlation with median electronically monitored adherence (r = 0.47; P < 0.0001), largest AUC for predicting nonadherence (AUC = 0.76 [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-0.87]), best accuracy (71% [95% CI, 61%-82%]), and good sensitivity (84% [95% CI, 73%-96%]). The single-item question was the most accurate in predicting electronically monitored nonadherence among participants with poor self-reported adherence. In clinical practice, where alternatives are too resource intensive, this free single-item screening question can help to identify glaucoma patients at risk of poor medication adherence with reasonable accuracy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34358735
pii: S2589-4196(21)00183-6
doi: 10.1016/j.ogla.2021.07.012
pmc: PMC8814049
mid: NIHMS1730535
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
137-145Subventions
Organisme : NEI NIH HHS
ID : K23 EY025320
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIDDK NIH HHS
ID : P30 DK092926
Pays : United States
Organisme : NEI NIH HHS
ID : R01 EY031337
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : TL1 TR002242
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
N Engl J Med. 2005 Oct 27;353(17):1773-83
pubmed: 16169887
Ophthalmology. 2013 Jul;120(7):1396-402
pubmed: 23541760
Pediatr Nephrol. 1997 Oct;11(5):547-51
pubmed: 9323277
Semin Ophthalmol. 2013 May;28(3):191-201
pubmed: 23697623
Eye (Lond). 2010 Aug;24(8):1338-43
pubmed: 20339390
Ophthalmol Glaucoma. 2020 Jul - Aug;3(4):228-237
pubmed: 33012330
Br J Ophthalmol. 2012 Feb;96(2):258-62
pubmed: 21610264
Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2013 Sep;111:1-16
pubmed: 24072942
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2018 Jul 23;4:128
pubmed: 30062043
J Gen Intern Med. 2001 Sep;16(9):606-13
pubmed: 11556941
Am J Ophthalmol. 2010 Feb;149(2):330-40
pubmed: 20103058
Value Health. 2009 Jan-Feb;12(1):118-23
pubmed: 19911444
J Ocul Pharmacol Ther. 2016 Jul-Aug;32(6):346-54
pubmed: 27058842
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 1998 Jul;2(7):525-30
pubmed: 9661817
Ophthalmology. 2005 Jun;112(6):953-61
pubmed: 15885795
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002 Oct;179(4):825-31
pubmed: 12239019
J Glaucoma. 2020 Nov;29(11):1017-1024
pubmed: 32740508
Ophthalmology. 2015 Oct;122(10):2010-21
pubmed: 26319441
BMC Ophthalmol. 2014 Mar 24;14:32
pubmed: 24655814
N Engl J Med. 2003 Jul 24;349(4):335-42
pubmed: 12878740
Ophthalmology. 2015 Jul;122(7):1308-16
pubmed: 25912144
J Glaucoma. 2003 Oct;12(5):393-8
pubmed: 14520147
Ophthalmology. 2020 Apr;127(4):477-483
pubmed: 31932093
Eur J Ophthalmol. 2011 Jul-Aug;21(4):410-4
pubmed: 21140373
Ophthalmology. 2011 Dec;118(12):2398-402
pubmed: 21856009
J Ophthalmol. 2014;2014:238939
pubmed: 24868450
Ophthalmology. 2006 Mar;113(3):431-6
pubmed: 16458967
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2019 Nov;25(11):1244-1254
pubmed: 31663462
Am J Ophthalmol. 1986 May 15;101(5):524-30
pubmed: 3706456
Br J Ophthalmol. 1990 Aug;74(8):477-80
pubmed: 2390523
Am J Ophthalmol. 2005 Oct;140(4):598-606
pubmed: 16226511
Med Care. 1986 Jan;24(1):67-74
pubmed: 3945130