| Literature DB >> 30709029 |
Seup Park1, Ilham Sentissi2, Seung Jae Gil3, Won-Seok Park4, ByungKwon Oh5, Ah Reum Son6, Young Ju Kong7, Sol Park8, Eunseong Paek9, Yong Joon Park10, Seung Heon Lee11,12.
Abstract
Non-adherence to tuberculosis (TB) treatment is a barrier to effective TB control. We investigated the effectiveness of a Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS) as a tailored adherence-promoting intervention in Morocco. We compared patients who received a MEMS (n = 206) with patients who received standard TB care (n = 141) among new active TB patients with sputum smear-positive. The mean total medication days were 141.87 ± 29.5 in the control group and 140.85 ± 17.9 in the MEMS group (p = 0.7147), and the mean age and sex were not different between the two groups (p > 0.05). The treatment success rate was significantly higher in the MEMS group than in the control group (odds ratio (OR): 4.33, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.13⁻8.81, p < 0.001), and the lost to follow-up rate was significantly lower in the MEMS group than in the control group (OR: 0.03, 95% CI: 0.05⁻0.24, p < 0.001) after adjusting for sex, age, and health centers. The mean drug adherence rate in the first month was significantly higher in the MEMS group than in the control group (p = 0.023). MEMS increased TB treatment success rate and decreased the lost to follow-up rate overall for infectious TB patients in a Moroccan rural area.Entities:
Keywords: Morocco; lost to follow-up rate; medication event monitoring system; success rate; tuberculosis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30709029 PMCID: PMC6388172 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16030412
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Comparison of general characteristics and treatment results between the control group and the Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS) group.
| Controls (n = 141) | MEMS Group (n = 206) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 35.74 (16.3) | 36.70 (14.9) | 0.5772 |
|
| 97 (68.8%) | 147 (71.4%) | 0.6936 |
|
| 141 (100%) | 206 (100%) | |
|
| |||
| New case, category I (n, %) | 141 (100%) | 206 (100%) | 0.488 |
|
| 175.2 (29.4) | 173.4 (18.7) | 0.488 |
|
| 141.87 (29.5) | 140.85 (17.9) | 0.7147 |
|
| 80.77 (9.2) | 81.35 (6.8) | 0.525 |
|
| 112 (79.5%) | 191 (93.2%) | <0.001 |
|
| |||
| Cured (n, %) | 61 (43.3%) | 128 (62.1%) | 0.001 |
| Treatment completed (n, %) | 51 (36.2%) | 64 (31.1%) | 0.321 |
| Treatment failed (n, %) | 3 (2.1%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0.066 |
| Died (n, %) | 2 (1.4%) | 1 (0.5%) | 0.569 |
| Lost to follow-up (n, %) | 15 (10.6%) | 1 (0.5%) | <0.001 |
| Not evaluated (n, %) | 9 (6.4%) | 12 (5.8%) | 0.831 |
| Treatment success (n, %) | 112 (79.5%) | 192 (93.2%) | <0.001 |
Abbreviations: SD, standard deviation; AFB, acid fast bacilli. +ve = positive.
Logistic regression model assessing independent predictors of treatment success and lost to follow-up for the case holding strategy for tuberculosis (TB) treatment.
| Variable | Odds Ratio | 95% CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment success | MEMS | 4.33 | 2.13–8.81 | <0.001 |
| Controls | Ref. | |||
| Sex, Male | 0.49 | 0.22–1.10 | 0.085 | |
| Age | 0.99 | 0.98–1.02 | 0.657 | |
| Health centers | 0.90 | 0.83–0.98 | 0.012 | |
| Lost to follow-up | MEMS | 0.03 | 0.05–0.24 | 0.001 |
| Controls | Ref. | |||
| Sex, Male | 8.58 | 1.07–68.45 | 0.043 | |
| Age | 1.01 | 0.97–1.04 | 0.825 | |
| Health Centers | 1.11 | 0.97–1.27 | 0.128 | |
Abbreviations: MEMS, Medication Event Monitoring System; Ref., reference.
Generalized linear mixed model estimating the time course of accumulated monthly drug adherence rate for TB medication over six months.
| Variable | Drug Adherence Rate (%) Estimate | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|
| MEMS | 1.02 | 0.40–1.66 | 0.002 |
| Controls | Ref. | ||
| Age | −0.02 | −0.04–0.002 | 0.077 |
| Time, Month | −0.62 | −0.80–−0.44 | <0.001 |
| Gender (Male) | 0.86 | 0.18–1.55 | 0.014 |
Abbreviations: MEMS, Medication Event Monitoring System; CI, confidence interval; Ref., reference.
Figure 1Accumulated drug adherence rate: The mean drug adherence rate in the first month (**) was significantly higher in the MEMS group than in the control group, but not in the final sixth month (*).