What can we learn from adherence data in adolescents participating in a clinical trial?
- PDF / 653,729 Bytes
- 1 Pages / 595.276 x 793.701 pts Page_size
- 87 Downloads / 200 Views
POSTER PRESENTATION
Open Access
What can we learn from adherence data in adolescents participating in a clinical trial? Jemma Jay Angela Anderson1,2*, Catherine Leggett3, Jenny Couper1,2, Alexia Peña1,2 From 8th APPES Biennial Scientific Meeting Darwin, Australia. 29 October – 1 November 2014 Introduction Treatment adherence during adolescence is challenging. Limited data exist for the rate of medication adherence in adolescents. Aim To evaluate medication adherence using two different methods (electronic monitoring system and tablet count) in adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes (T1D) participating in an RCT. Method Medication adherence was assessed in 54 T1D adolescents (age 14±2.3y, 26 males) enrolled in a 1 year RCT to receive metformin or placebo [1]. Adherence was assessed using tablet count and prospective electronic monitoring using Medication Event Monitoring System caps (MEMS, AARDEX group, LTD Sion, Switzerland), which recorded episodes of bottle opening for each participant. These data were then compared to prescribed doses. Adequate adherence was defined as ≥ 80% of prescribed doses taken over a defined period. Adherence was assessed after allowing a 3-month run-in period to account for dose titration and minimise potential for reactivity associated with initial adherence monitoring. Data were reported from 3-6 months (short-term) and from 6-12 months (long-term). Results Adolescents had mean T1D duration 5.9±4.2y, median HbA1c 8.5 (6.3-11.6)%. 26 used CSII. MEMS adherence data for short and long-term use was available for 53 and 48 participants respectively. 1
Women’s and Children’s Hospital, Endocrine and Diabetes Centre, North Adelaide, SA, Australia Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
Adequate adherence using MEMS was 47% (25/53) short-term and 35 (17/48) long-term. Median (IQR 2575%) adherence was 79 (46.6-88.7%) short-term and 67 (43.4-86.8%) long-term. Tablet count adherence data for short and long-term use was available for 35 and 42 participants respectively. Adequate adherence using tablet count was 63% (22/35) short-term and 45% (19/42) long-term. Median (IQR 25-75%) was 84 (70.8-90.1%) short-term and 77 (61.786.8%) long-term. There was no statistically significant difference in adherence between the two methods used p=0.22 (short-term) and p=0.07 (long-term). Adolescents who were adherent in the short-term by MEMS were more likely to have a longer diabetes duration (7.2 vs 4.8 years, p=0.03).
Conclusion Adolescent adherence to intervention in this clinical trial was suboptimal as shown by both electronic monitoring and tablet count. This finding reinforces the importance of parental involvement in treatment regimens in this population. Authors’ details 1 Women’s and Children’s Hospital, Endocrine and Diabetes Centre, North Adelaide, SA, Australia. 2The University of Adelaide, Discipline of Paediatrics, North Adelaide, SA, Australia. 3SA Pharmacy Women’s and Children’s Hospital, North Adelaide, SA, Australia. Published: 28 April 2015 Reference 1. Anderson,
Data Loading...
