Claire Villeneuve1, Annick Rousseau2, Jean-Phillipe Rerolle3, Lionel Couzi4, Nassim Kamar5, Marie Essig6, Isabelle Etienne7, Pierre-Francois Westeel8, Mathias Büchler9, Laure Esposito10, Antoine Thierry11, Pierre Marquet12, Caroline Monchaud13. 1. CHU Limoges, Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Centre of Pharmacovigilance, F-87000 Limoges, France; INSERM, UMR-1248, F-87000 Limoges, France. Electronic address: claire.villeneuve@chu-limoges.fr. 2. INSERM, UMR-1248, F-87000 Limoges, France; FHU SUPORT, Limoges, F-87000, France; Univ Limoges, Faculty of Pharmacy, Department of Biophysics, F-87000 Limoges, France. 3. INSERM, UMR-1248, F-87000 Limoges, France; FHU SUPORT, Limoges, F-87000, France; Department of Nephrology, Dialysis and Transplantation, F-87000, Limoges, France. 4. Department of Nephrology, Transplantation, Dialysis, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) Pellegrin, Bordeaux, France; CNRS-UMR 5164 Immuno ConcEpT, Bordeaux University, Bordeaux, France. 5. Department of Nephrology and Organ Transplantation, CHU Toulouse, Toulouse, France; Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France; INSERM U1043, IFR-BMT, CHU Purpan, Toulouse, France. 6. INSERM, UMR-1248, F-87000 Limoges, France; FHU SUPORT, Limoges, F-87000, France; Department of Nephrology, Dialysis and Transplantation, F-87000, Limoges, France; Univ Limoges, Faculty of Medicine, F-87000 Limoges, France. 7. Service de Nephrologie, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France. 8. Department of Nephrology and Kidney Transplantation, University Hospital of Amiens, Amiens, France. 9. FHU SUPORT, Limoges, F-87000, France; Department of Nephrology and Kidney Transplantation, University Hospital of Tours, Tours, France; François Rabelais University, EA 4245 Tours, France. 10. Department of Nephrology and Organ Transplantation, CHU Toulouse, Toulouse, France. 11. FHU SUPORT, Limoges, F-87000, France; CHU Poitiers, Department of Nephrology, Dialysis and Transplantation, F-86000 Poitiers, France. 12. CHU Limoges, Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Centre of Pharmacovigilance, F-87000 Limoges, France; INSERM, UMR-1248, F-87000 Limoges, France; FHU SUPORT, Limoges, F-87000, France; Univ Limoges, Faculty of Medicine, F-87000 Limoges, France. 13. CHU Limoges, Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Centre of Pharmacovigilance, F-87000 Limoges, France; INSERM, UMR-1248, F-87000 Limoges, France; FHU SUPORT, Limoges, F-87000, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Adherence is a dynamic phenomenon and a critical determinant of transplant patients outcome. The objective of this longitudinal study was to explore adherence in kidney transplant patients followed-up for up to three years after transplantation. METHODS: Adherence was repeatedly estimated using the Morisky-Green-Levine 4-Item Medication Adherence Scale, in two successive cohorts of 345 (EPIGREN) and 367 (EPHEGREN) kidney transplant recipients. Mixed effect modeling with latent processes and latent classes was used to describe adherence time-profiles. RESULTS: Two latent classes were identified. The adherent class represented 85% of the patients. Patients of the poorer-adherence class displayed a lower adherence at one month (p<10-3), which worsened over time. Good adherence was associated with age >50 years, fewer depression episodes (5% vs. 13%, p = 0.001) and a better mental health component of quality of life (MCS-SF36 47 ± 11 vs. 41 ± 13, p = 0.015). Survival without acute rejection episodes was longer in the adherent class (p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of poor adherence in renal transplant patients can be detected as early as one month post-transplantation, using appropriate and easy tools adapted to routine monitoring. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: An early focus on vulnerable patients should allow putting into place actions in order to reduce the risk of poor outcome related to poor adherence.
OBJECTIVE: Adherence is a dynamic phenomenon and a critical determinant of transplant patients outcome. The objective of this longitudinal study was to explore adherence in kidney transplant patients followed-up for up to three years after transplantation. METHODS: Adherence was repeatedly estimated using the Morisky-Green-Levine 4-Item Medication Adherence Scale, in two successive cohorts of 345 (EPIGREN) and 367 (EPHEGREN) kidney transplant recipients. Mixed effect modeling with latent processes and latent classes was used to describe adherence time-profiles. RESULTS: Two latent classes were identified. The adherent class represented 85% of the patients. Patients of the poorer-adherence class displayed a lower adherence at one month (p<10-3), which worsened over time. Good adherence was associated with age >50 years, fewer depression episodes (5% vs. 13%, p = 0.001) and a better mental health component of quality of life (MCS-SF36 47 ± 11 vs. 41 ± 13, p = 0.015). Survival without acute rejection episodes was longer in the adherent class (p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of poor adherence in renal transplant patients can be detected as early as one month post-transplantation, using appropriate and easy tools adapted to routine monitoring. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: An early focus on vulnerable patients should allow putting into place actions in order to reduce the risk of poor outcome related to poor adherence.
Authors: Denise Karin Beck; Mirjam Tielen; Marloes Rechards; Reinier Timman; Charlotte Boonstra; Josette Versteegh; Jacqueline van de Wetering; Robert Zietse; Teun van Gelder; Willem Weimar; Jan van Saase; Jan van Busschbach; Emma Kay Massey Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2020-08-28 Impact factor: 2.388