| Literature DB >> 32340616 |
Onengiya Harry1,2, Lori E Crosby3,4, Constance Mara3,4, Tracy V Ting5,4, Jennifer L Huggins5,4, Avani C Modi3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Childhood-Onset Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (cSLE), poor medication adherence rates are very high. Interventions targeting this problem in cSLE are limited thus effective interventions are needed. The objective of this study is to examine the feasibility and acceptability an intervention (automated digital reminders + personalized prescribed treatment plan (pPTP)) to improve medication adherence in young adults with cSLE over 3 months.Entities:
Keywords: Adherence in cSLE; Adherence in pediatric-onset lupus; Adherence intervention and young adults with cSLE
Year: 2020 PMID: 32340616 PMCID: PMC7187497 DOI: 10.1186/s12969-020-00430-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pediatr Rheumatol Online J ISSN: 1546-0096 Impact factor: 3.054
Baseline demographical, disease, and barriers characteristics of participants stratified by group
| Characteristic | Total Participants | Control | Treatment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, mean, (SD) in yrs. | 20.5 (1.6) | 20.5 (1.6) | 20.5 (1.7) |
| Gender (female), No (%) | 16 (84) | 11 (100) | 5 (63) |
| Race, No, (%) | |||
| White | 6 (32) | 4 (36) | 2 (25) |
| Black | 11 (58) | 6 (55) | 5 (63) |
| Asian | 1 (5) | – | 1 (13) |
| Multiple | 1 (5) | 1 (9) | – |
| Insurance type, No (%) | |||
| Public | 7 (37) | 5 (45) | 2 (25) |
| Private | 12 (63) | 6 (55) | 6 (75) |
| Disease duration, yrs., (SD) | 4.8 (3.2) | 4 (3) | 5.4 (3.4) |
| SLEDAIa, mean, (range) | 5 (0–10) | 5 (2–10) | 4.4 (0–9) |
| SLICCb, No., (%) | 4 (40) | 3 (30) | 1 (12.5) |
| Physician global, mean (range) | 0.9 (0–3.5) | 1 (0–3.5) | 0.6 (0–1.5) |
| Nephritis, No. (%) | 8 (42) | 5 (45) | 3 (38) |
| PROMIS fatigue, mean (SD) | 53 ± 3.0 | 57 ± 2.9 | 47 ± 3.2 |
| PROMIS pain intensity, mean (SD) | 2.8 (2.3) | 3.6 ± 2.3 | 1.8 (1.9) |
| No of Pillsc, mean (SD) | 7 (3.8) | 7 (3.5) | 8 (4.2) |
| Presence of comorbidity (%) | 18 (95) | 11 (100) | 7 (88) |
| Hypertension, No. (%) | 5 (26) | 3 (27) | 2 (25) |
| Depression, No. (%) | 5 (26) | 3 (27) | 2 (25) |
| Obesity, No. (%) | 10 (53) | 7 (66) | 3 (38) |
| Barriersd, No (%) | |||
| Forgetting | 15 (79) | 11 (100) | 4 (50) |
| Taste | 13 (68) | 9 (81) | 4 (50) |
| Side effects | |||
| Current | 12 (63) | 8 (73) | 4 (50) |
| Future | 11 (58) | 6 (55) | 5 (63) |
| Fertility concerns | 11 (58) | 7 (64) | 4 (50) |
| Treatment upsetting | 8 (42) | 6 (55) | 2 (25) |
| Inconvenient | 7 (37) | 6 (55) | 1 (13) |
| Cost | 7 (37) | 5 (45) | 2 (25) |
aSLEDAI 2 K score from clinic visit preceding start of study
bSLICC Damage Index obtained from annual calculated score within 12 months of study initiation
cIncludes both lupus and non-lupus medications being taken by participants
dIncludes barriers with fewer than 3 respondents such as difficulty swallowing pills, running out of medication, refusing to take treatment, believing treatment to be unnecessary, desire to keep treatment private from others, lack of perceived treatment benefit, treatment getting in the way, and hard instructions
Fig. 1Consort Diagram
Feasibility and acceptability results for the treatment group
| Title Items | % Young Adult Who Agree or Strongly Agree |
|---|---|
| 1. The pillbox was easy to use. | 100 |
| 2. The pillbox did not have any glitches. | 75b |
| 3. The pillbox was helpful. | 88 |
| 4. The personalized treatment plan taught me something new. | 50 |
| 5. The personalized treatment plan made me more interested in my lupus management. | 50 |
| 6. The pillbox plus digital reminders helped me take my lupus medicine. | 60 |
| 7. I took my medication as soon as the reminders alerted me. | 40 |
| 8. The reminders were useful to my lupus management. | 60 |
| 9. I became bored with pillbox and reminders. | 0 |
| 10. I will continue to use the pillbox with reminders in the future. | 60 |
| 11. Overall, I benefited from using the pillbox with reminders. | 60 |
| 12. I think the pillbox with reminders has helped reduce my stress about managing lupus. | 60 |
aBased on a 4–5 score on a 5 point Likert Scale denoting agree or strongly agree. Assumption is made that a rating in this range notes a high rate of acceptability by respondents
bOne participant had difficulty with pillbox cellular connectivity. The other participant chose a “neutral” response but had previously reported problems with not having electricity at home
Fig. 2Means of Objective Adherence over Time