Jennifer B Levin1, Johnny Sams2, Curtis Tatsuoka3, Kristin A Cassidy2, Martha Sajatovic2. 1. Department of Psychiatry, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, 10524 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44106 USA. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA. 3. Neurological and Behavioral Outcomes Center, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Medication nonadherence occurs in 20-60% of persons with bipolar disorder (BD) and is associated with serious negative outcomes, including relapse, hospitalization, incarceration, suicide and high healthcare costs. Various strategies have been developed to measure adherence in BD. This descriptive paper summarizes challenges and workable strategies using electronic medication monitoring in a randomized clinical trial (RCT) in patients with BD. METHODS: Descriptive data from 57 nonadherent individuals with BD enrolled in a prospective RCT evaluating a novel customized adherence intervention versus control were analyzed. Analyses focused on whole group data and did not assess intervention effects. Adherence was assessed with the self-reported Tablets Routine Questionnaire and the Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS). RESULTS: The majority of participants were women (74%), African American (69%), with type I BD (77%). Practical limitations of MEMS included misuse in conjunction with pill minders, polypharmacy, cost, failure to bring to research visits, losing the device, and the device impacting baseline measurement. The advantages were more precise measurement, less biased recall, and collecting data from past time periods for missed interim visits. CONCLUSIONS: Automated devices such as MEMS can assist investigators in evaluating adherence in patients with BD. Knowing the anticipated pitfalls allows study teams to implement preemptive procedures for successful implementation in BD adherence studies and can help pave the way for future refinements as automated adherence assessment technologies become more sophisticated and readily available.
OBJECTIVES: Medication nonadherence occurs in 20-60% of persons with bipolar disorder (BD) and is associated with serious negative outcomes, including relapse, hospitalization, incarceration, suicide and high healthcare costs. Various strategies have been developed to measure adherence in BD. This descriptive paper summarizes challenges and workable strategies using electronic medication monitoring in a randomized clinical trial (RCT) in patients with BD. METHODS: Descriptive data from 57 nonadherent individuals with BD enrolled in a prospective RCT evaluating a novel customized adherence intervention versus control were analyzed. Analyses focused on whole group data and did not assess intervention effects. Adherence was assessed with the self-reported Tablets Routine Questionnaire and the Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS). RESULTS: The majority of participants were women (74%), African American (69%), with type I BD (77%). Practical limitations of MEMS included misuse in conjunction with pill minders, polypharmacy, cost, failure to bring to research visits, losing the device, and the device impacting baseline measurement. The advantages were more precise measurement, less biased recall, and collecting data from past time periods for missed interim visits. CONCLUSIONS: Automated devices such as MEMS can assist investigators in evaluating adherence in patients with BD. Knowing the anticipated pitfalls allows study teams to implement preemptive procedures for successful implementation in BD adherence studies and can help pave the way for future refinements as automated adherence assessment technologies become more sophisticated and readily available.
Authors: Robert M Post; Lori L Altshuler; Mark A Frye; Trisha Suppes; Paul E Keck; Susan L McElroy; Gabriele S Leverich; David A Luckenbaugh; Michael Rowe; Scott Pizzarello; Ralph W Kupka; Heinz Grunze; Willem A Nolen Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Matthew Byerly; Robert Fisher; Katrina Whatley; Rhiannon Holland; Femina Varghese; Thomas Carmody; Brianne Magouirk; A John Rush Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2005-02-28 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: E Diaz; H B Levine; M C Sullivan; M J Sernyak; K A Hawkins; J A Cramer; S W Woods Journal: J Psychiatry Neurosci Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 6.186
Authors: Martha Sajatovic; Dawn I Velligan; Peter J Weiden; Marcia A Valenstein; Gbenga Ogedegbe Journal: J Psychosom Res Date: 2009-07-25 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Martha Sajatovic; Rosalinda V Ignacio; Jane A West; Kristin A Cassidy; Roknedin Safavi; Amy M Kilbourne; Frederic C Blow Journal: Compr Psychiatry Date: 2008-08-23 Impact factor: 3.735
Authors: Martha Sajatovic; Curtis Tatsuoka; Elisabeth Welter; Kari Colon-Zimmermann; Carol Blixen; Adam T Perzynski; Shelly Amato; Jamie Cage; Johnny Sams; Shirley M Moore; Svetlana Pundik; Sophia Sundararajan; Charles Modlin; Cathy Sila Journal: Am J Health Promot Date: 2017-03-06
Authors: Martha Sajatovic; Curtis Tatsuoka; Kristin A Cassidy; Peter J Klein; Edna Fuentes-Casiano; Jamie Cage; Michelle E Aebi; Luis F Ramirez; Carol Blixen; Adam T Perzynski; Mark S Bauer; Steven A Safren; Jennifer B Levin Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2018-09-25 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Martha Sajatovic; Jennifer B Levin; Johnny Sams; Kristin A Cassidy; Kouri Akagi; Michelle E Aebi; Luis F Ramirez; Steven A Safren; Curtis Tatsuoka Journal: Bipolar Disord Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 6.744
Authors: David A Wohl; Andrew G Allmon; Donna Evon; Christopher Hurt; Sarah Ailleen Reifeis; Harsha Thirumurthy; Becky Straub; Angela Edwards; Katie R Mollan Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2017-05-05 Impact factor: 3.835
Authors: Maximilian Pilhatsch; Tasha Glenn; Natalie Rasgon; Martin Alda; Kemal Sagduyu; Paul Grof; Rodrigo Munoz; Wendy Marsh; Scott Monteith; Emanuel Severus; Rita Bauer; Philipp Ritter; Peter C Whybrow; Michael Bauer Journal: Int J Bipolar Disord Date: 2018-05-01