Prevalence and Risk Factors of Non-Adherence with Immunosuppressive Medication in Kidney Transplant Patients
Open accessAbstract
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(R). 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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
MEMS are considered the gold standard to assess adherence to immunosuppressants in clinical studies.
“MEMS[18,19] are considered the gold standard to assess adherence to immunosuppressants in clinical studies[20].”
From Adherence is associated with a favorable outcome after lung transplantation (2019) · cites this paper as [19]
Cites
Leventhal, H., Diefenbach, M., & Leventhal, E. A. (1992) · Cognitive Therapy and Research · doi:10.1007/bf01173486 · Cited by 1,573 · see citing works
Denhaerynck, K., Dobbels, F., Cleemput, I., Desmyttere, A., Schafer-Keller, P., Schaub, S., & De Geest, S. (2005) · Transplant International · doi:10.1111/j.1432-2277.2005.00176.x · Cited by 424 · see citing works
Self-citationComparing compliance patterns between randomized treatments
Vrijens, B., & Goetghebeur, E. (1997) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/s0197-2456(96)00235-8 · Cited by 114 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Takemoto, S. K., Pinsky, B. W., Schnitzler, M. A., Lentine, K. L., Willoughby, L. M., Burroughs, T. E., & Bunnapradist, S. (2007) · American Journal of Transplantation · doi:10.1111/j.1600-6143.2007.01966.x · Cited by 202 · see citing works
“Unfortunately, this methodology may overestimate compliance rates because most patients are hesitant to reveal their pill taking behavior (2,11).”
BackgroundMethodAdherence influencing factors in patients taking oral anticancer agents: A systematic review
Mathes, T., Pieper, D., Antoine, S.-L., & Eikermann, M. (2014) · Cancer Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.canep.2014.03.012 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Medication Nonadherence After Lung Transplantation in Adult Recipients
Castleberry, A. W., Bishawi, M., Worni, M., Erhunmwunsee, L., Speicher, P. J., Osho, A. A., Snyder, L. D., & Hartwig, M. G. (2017) · The Annals of Thoracic Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.06.067 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Adherence is associated with a favorable outcome after lung transplantation
Bertram, A., Fuge, J., Suhling, H., Tudorache, I., Haverich, A., Welte, T., & Gottlieb, J. (2019) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0226167 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
“Most publications focus on adherence to immunosuppressants, assessed with electronic medication event monitoring systems (MEMS), self-reports, or surrogate parameters like therapeutic drug monitoring[9,10].”
BackgroundInfluential
- Authors
- Denhaerynck, K., Steiger, J., Bock, A., Schäfer-Keller, P., Köfer, S., Thannberger, N., & De Geest, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Basel (CH)
- University Hospital of Basel (CH)
- Kantonsspital Aarau (CH)
- ORCID
- Denhaerynck, K
- Venue
- American Journal of Transplantation
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2007-01
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 108-116
- ISSN
- 1600-6135 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2050261089
- Cited by
- 184
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 5.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- American Journal of Transplantation (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Transplantation › Renal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Nephrology › Dialysis and Renal Disease Management
- Keywords
- medication non-adherence, immunosuppressive therapy, kidney transplantation, risk factors, electronic medication monitoring, MEMS, self-efficacy, drug holidays, dosing adherence, male sex, socioeconomic factors
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Female, Humans, Immunosuppressive Agents, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Compliance, Prospective Studies, Risk Factors, Sex Factors, Prevalence, Logistic Models, Kidney Transplantation, Treatment Refusal, Drug Monitoring
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review