| Literature DB >> 24608864 |
Hendrik Suhling1, Jessica Rademacher1, Imke Zinowsky1, Jan Fuge1, Mark Greer1, Gregor Warnecke2, Jacqueline M Smits3, Anna Bertram4, Axel Haverich2, Tobias Welte1, Jens Gottlieb1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accurate immunosuppression is of critical importance in preventing rejection, while avoiding toxicity following lung transplantation. The mainstay immunosuppressants are calcineurin inhibitors, which require regular monitoring due to interactions with other medications and diet. Adherence to immunosuppression and patient knowledge is vital and can be improved through patient education. Education using tablet-computers was investigated.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24608864 PMCID: PMC3946627 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0090828
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Flow chart of inclusion and improvement of immunosuppression.
Flow chart of inclusion (A). Delta % of calcineurin inhibitor trough levels in target range 6 months after patient education compared to 6 months before patient education (B). Dashed line marks cut-off of non-inferiority (lower 95% CI of conventional group, p = 0.17). Visualization of calcineurin inhibitor levels at inclusion (x-axis) and after 6 months (y-axis) (C).
End points.
|
|
| Percentage of calcineurin inhibitor trough levels in target range 6 months after patient education |
|
|
| Improvement of percentage of calcineurin inhibitor trough levels in target range (Delta %) of the next 10 measurements after patient education compared to the last 10 measurements before patient education |
| Trough level variability 6 months after patient education compared to 6 months before patient education |
| Number of immunosuppression level measurements vs. recommended measurements |
| Total time of education |
| Total time of answering questionnaire |
| Improvement of patient knowledge on immunosuppressive after patient education |
| Patient satisfaction |
| Self rated adherence to immunosuppressive medication (BAASIS scale) |
| Therapy adherence 6 months after patient education compared to 6 months before patient education |
| Glomerular filtration rate 6 months after patient education compared to baseline |
Demographics.
| Variable | Subgroup | All patients, n = 64 | Tablet-pc group, n = 32 | Conventional group, n = 32 | Significance |
|
| 93 (84; 97) | 93 (82; 97) | 93.5 (88.3; 96.8) | 0.4 | |
|
|
| 52 (82.5) | 24 (78) | 28 (88) | 0.34 |
|
| 11 (17.5) | 7 (22) | 4 (12) | ||
|
|
| 22 (34) | 9 (28) | 13 (41) | 0.8 |
|
| 12 (19) | 7 (22) | 5 (16) | ||
|
| 5 (8) | 2 (6) | 3 (9) | ||
|
| 7 (11) | 4 (12) | 3 (9) | ||
|
| 18 (28) | 10 (32) | 8 (25) | ||
|
|
| 2 (3) | 1 (3) | 1 (3) | 0.75 |
|
| 62 (97) | 31 (97) | 31 (97) | ||
|
| 47 (34; 57) | 52 (35.9; 57.6) | 45 (33.3; 53.9) | 0.18 | |
|
|
| 36 (56) | 19 (59) | 17 (53) | 0.8 |
|
| 28 (44) | 13 (41) | 15 (47) | ||
|
|
| 49 (76) | 27 (84) | 22 (69) | 0.3 |
|
| 12 (19) | 4 (13) | 8 (25) | ||
|
| 3 (5) | 1 (3) | 2 (6) | ||
|
|
| 47 (77) | 21 (70) | 26 (84) | 0.4 |
|
| 13 (21) | 8 (27) | 5 (16) | ||
|
| 1 (2) | 1 (3) | 0 | ||
|
| 31 (20; 36) | 31 (20.5; 36) | 31 (20; 38.3) | 0.77 | |
|
|
| 15 (13;22) | 15 (13; 22) | 16 (14; 21) | 0.9 |
|
| 15 (13; 19) | 15 (13; 20) | 14 (13; 17) | 0.1 | |
|
|
| 5 (3; 7) | 5 (3; 7) | 5 (2; 7) | 0.9 |
|
| 8.5 (5; 12) | 10 (5.8; 14) | 7 (4.8; 9.5) | 0.048 |
Patient demographics and characteristics. Categorical variables were compared using a chi-square test and numeric values were shown as median with IQR, using student's t-test.
End point results.
| Variable | Time point | All patients, n = 64 | Tablet-pc group, n = 32 | Conventional group, n = 32 | Significance |
| Levels of immunosuppression in target range, % (IQR) | 6 months | 55 (38; 68) | 58 (50; 69.3) | 48.5 (36; 67.3) | 0.27 |
| Improvement of percentage of calcineurin inhibitor trough levels in target range (Delta %) of the next 10 measurements after patient education compared to the last 10 measurements before patient education | 20 (10; 40) | 30 (10; 40) | 20 (7.5; 30) | 0.27 | |
| Ratio of level measurements divided by recommended measurements | inclusion | 1.11 (0.96; 1.27) | 1.09 (0.90; 1.21) | 1.17 (97; 1.30) | 0.21 |
| 6 months | 1.14 (1.00; 1.43) | 1.24 (1.07; 1.51) | 1.11 (0.96; 1.28) | 0.48 | |
| Improvement of percentage of calcineurin inhibitor trough levels (Delta %) in target range 6 months after patient education compared to 6 months before patient education | 26 (12.5; 36) | 29 (17.3; 36.3) | 20 (4.8; 36) | 0.17 | |
| Total time of education (first visit) (min) | inclusion | 25 (21.3; 29.5) | 25 (22; 28) | 25 (21; 30) | 0.75 |
| Total time of answering questionnaire (first visit) (min) | inclusion | 18 (14.3; 21.6) | 16.5 (14; 22) | 19 (16; 22) | 0.38 |
| Estimated glomerular filtration rate (% improvement 6 months to baseline) | 4 (−1.2; 15.1) | 4 (−1.2; 18.5) | 5 (−2.5; 13.3.) | 0.37 |
*<1: less measurements than required, >1 more measurements than required.
Results from pre-defined end-points. All values are shown as median with IQR (student's t-test).
Adherence Scores.
| Variable | Time point | All patients, n = 64 | Tablet-pc group, n = 32 | Conventional group, n = 32 | Significance |
|
|
| 4 (3; 4) | 4 (3; 4) | 3 (3; 4) | 0.12 |
|
| 4 (4; 4) | 4 (3; 4) | 4 (3; 4) | 0.8 | |
|
|
| 100 (96; 100) | 100 (96.3; 100) | 100 (96.3; 100) | |
|
| 100 (100; 100) | 100 (93.8; 100) | 100 (100;100) | ||
|
|
| 14 (12; 16) | 14 (12; 15) | 14 (12; 16) | 0.56 |
|
| 12 (12; 15) | 13 (12; 15) | 12 (12; 14) | 0.8 | |
|
|
| 4 (0.29) | 4 (0.25) | 4 (0.34) | 0.4 |
|
| 4 (0.22) | 4 (0.18) | 4 (0.25) | 0.5 | |
|
|
| 1 (0.54) | 1 (0.55) | 1 (0.53) | 0.6 |
|
| 2 (0.78) | 1 (0.9) | 2 (0.64) | 0.27 | |
|
|
| 2 (0.77) | 2 (0.55) | 2 (0.91) | 0.09 |
|
| 2 (0.98) | 2 (0.94) | 2 (0.99) | 0.11 | |
|
|
| 40 (63) | 19 (59) | 21 (66) | 0.8 |
|
| 24 (37) | 13 (41) | 11 (34) | 0.8 | |
|
|
| 80 (71; 90) | 80 (71; 90) | 85 (71; 90) | 0.6 |
|
| 90 (81; 95) | 90 (83; 95) | 90 (78; 95) | 0.6 | |
|
| 7 (0; 18) | 7 (0; 19) | 7 (−1; 18) | 0.87 |
Results from subjective and objective adherence (BAASIS, VAS, ITBS and Morinsky scale). a Self reported adherence: 1–4 points; 1 poor adherence, 4 very good adherence. b VAS (visual analogue scale of BAASIS questionnaire) 0 to 100; 100 very good self rated adherence.
Mann-Whitney-U-Test, Mean (SD); d Satisfaction, 1–5 points (1 very good to 5 very bad); Mean (SD), Mann-Whitney-U-Test.