Diagnostic Accuracy of Measurement Methods to Assess Non-Adherence to Immunosuppressive Drugs in Kidney Transplant Recipients
Open accessAbstract
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. This cross-sectional study included a convenience sample of 249 adult kidney transplant recipients (Ktx) (female: 43.4%; mean age 53.6 [SD: 12.7], median 7 years [IQR: 9 years] post-Ktx). NAH was assessed using EM over 3 months (i.e. reference standard), assays of cyclosporine, tacrolimus, mycophenolat-mofetil, patients' self-reports and clinicians' collateral reports. The constructed composite adherence score included assay, self-reports and collateral reports. NAH's prevalence across the measurement methods was EM: 17.3%; assay: 33% (cyclosporine: 25.8%; tacrolimus: 35.1%; mycophenolat-mofetil: 40.2%); self-report: 12.4%; collateral reports: 24.9% and composite adherence score: 38.9%, respectively. The composite adherence score and collateral reports showed the highest and lowest sensitivities to NAH (72.1% and 15.8%, respectively). Specificity was highest for collateral reports of at least three clinicians (93.1%). Likelihood ratio of a positive test was 2.74 for composite adherence score. No measures showed high sensitivity alongside high specificity. Combining measures increased diagnostic accuracy, indicating the relevance of combined measures for clinical and research purposes.
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 results have been compared to patients' and clinicians' reports with weak to moderate correlation.
“MEMS results have been compared to patients’ and clinicians’ reports with weak to moderate correlation[28–30].”
From Adherence is associated with a favorable outcome after lung transplantation (2019) · cites this paper as [29]
Cites
Osterberg, L., & Blaschke, T. (2005) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra050100 · Cited by 7,974 · see citing works
Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Lijmer, J. G., Moher, D., Rennie, D., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7379.41 · Cited by 3,215
Farmer, K. C. (1999) · Clinical Therapeutics · doi:10.1016/s0149-2918(99)80026-5 · Cited by 889 · 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-citationTakemoto, 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 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Evidence from previous research, showing that minimal deviations from the dosing schedule were associated with increased risk of late acute rejection episodes in adult heart (42) and renal (2,30) transplant recipients, supports this stringent cut-off.”
MethodResult
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Dobbels, F., Berben, L., De Geest, S., Drent, G., Lennerling, A., Whittaker, C., & Kugler, C. (2010) · Transplantation · doi:10.1097/tp.0b013e3181e346cd · Cited by 220 · see citing works
Eisenga, M. F., Gomes-Neto, A. W., van Londen, M., Ziengs, A. L., Douwes, R. M., Stam, S. P., Osté, M. C. J., Knobbe, T. J., Hessels, N. R., Buunk, A. M., et al. (2018) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024502 · Cited by 141 · 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
A New Electronic Monitoring Device to Measure Medication Adherence: Usability of the Helping Hand™
De Bleser, L., Vincke, B., Dobbels, F., Happ, M. B., Maes, B., Vanhaecke, J., & De Geest, S. (2010) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s100301535 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
- Authors
- Schäfer-Keller, P., Steiger, J., Bock, A., Denhaerynck, K., & De Geest, S.
- Affiliations
- University Hospital of Basel (CH)
- University of Basel (CH)
- ORCID
- Denhaerynck, K.
- Venue
- American Journal of Transplantation
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2008-03
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 616-626
- ISSN
- 1600-6135 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2024823143
- Cited by
- 198
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 11.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- American Journal of Transplantation (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (58697)
- 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, kidney transplant recipients, immunosuppressants, electronic medication monitoring, cyclosporine, tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, self-reported adherence, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Immunosuppressive Agents, Middle Aged, Sensitivity and Specificity, 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