Tracey-Lea Laba

Mobile Telephone Text Messaging for Medication Adherence in Chronic Disease: A Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE Adherence to long-term therapies in chronic disease is poor. Traditional interventions to improve adherence are complex and not widely effective. Mobile telephone text messaging may be a scalable means to support medication adherence. OBJECTIVES To conduct a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials to assess the effect of mobile telephone text messaging on medication adherence in chronic disease. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, and CINAHL (from database inception to January 15, 2015), as well as reference lists of the articles identified. The data were analyzed in March 2015. STUDY SELECTION Randomized clinical trials evaluating a mobile telephone text message intervention to promote medication adherence in adults with chronic disease. DATA EXTRACTION Two authors independently extracted information on study characteristics, text message characteristics, and outcome measures as per the predefined protocol. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Odds ratios and pooled data were calculated using random-effects models. Risk of bias and study quality were assessed as per Cochrane guidelines. Disagreement was resolved by consensus. RESULTS Sixteen randomized clinical trials were included, with 5 of 16 using personalization, 8 of 16 using 2-way communication, and 8 of 16 using a daily text message frequency. The median intervention duration was 12 weeks, and self-report was the most commonly used method to assess medication adherence. In the pooled analysis of 2742 patients (median age, 39 years and 50.3% [1380 of 2742] female), text messaging significantly improved medication adherence (odds ratio, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.52-2.93; P < .001). The effect was not sensitive to study characteristics (intervention duration or type of disease) or text message characteristics (personalization, 2-way communication, or daily text message frequency). In a sensitivity analysis, our findings remained robust to change in inclusion criteria based on study quality (odds ratio, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.21-2.29; P = .002). There was moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 62%) across clinical trials. After adjustment for publication bias, the point estimate was reduced but remained positive for an intervention effect (odds ratio, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.18-2.39). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Mobile phone text messaging approximately doubles the odds of medication adherence. This increase translates into adherence rates improving from 50% (assuming this baseline rate in patients with chronic disease) to 67.8%, or an absolute increase of 17.8%. While promising, these results should be interpreted with caution given the short duration of trials and reliance on self-reported medication adherence measures. Future studies need to determine the features of text message interventions that improve success, as well as appropriate patient populations, sustained effects, and influences on clinical outcomes.

Patient preferences for adherence to treatment for osteoarthritis: the MEdication Decisions in Osteoarthritis Study (MEDOS).

BackgroundOften affecting knee joints, osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common type of arthritis and by 2020 is predicted to become the fourth leading cause of disability globally. Without cure, medication management is symptomatic, mostly with simple analgesics such as acetaminophen and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and glucosamine sulfate. Adherence to arthritis medications is generally low. Intentional non-adherence, that is deliberate decision-making about the use of analgesics, occurs in OA patients. To date, a limited number of studies have explored medication-taking decisions in people with OA nor the extent to which individuals’ trade off one treatment factor for another in their decision-making using quantitative techniques. This study aimed to estimate the relative influence of medication-related factors and respondent characteristics on decisions to continue medications among people with symptomatic OA.MethodsA discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted among participants attending end-of-study visits in the L ong-term E valuation of G lucosamine S ulfate (LEGS) study (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT00513422). The paper-based survey was used to estimate the relative importance of seven medication specific factors (pain efficacy, mode of action, dose frequency, treatment schedule, side effects, prescription, and out-of-pocket costs) and respondent characteristics on decisions to continue medications.Results188 (response rate 37%) completed surveys were returned. Four of the seven medication factors (side effects, out-of-pocket costs, mode of action, treatment schedule) had a significant effect on the choice to continue medication; patient characteristics did not. Assuming equivalent pain efficacy and disease-modifying properties for glucosamine, the positive relative likelihood of continuing with sustained-release acetaminophen was equivalent to glucosamine. By contrast, the negative relative likelihood of NSAID continuation was mostly driven by the side effect profile. The predicted probability of continuing with glucosamine decreased with increasing out-of-pocket costs.ConclusionsThis study has characterised the complexity of medication-taking decisions that potentially underpin intentional non-adherent behaviour for people with symptomatic OA. In particular, medication risks and cost were important and ought to be borne into considerations in interpreting clinical trial evidence for practice. Ultimately addressing these factors may be the way forward to realising the full potential of health and economic benefits from the efficacious and safe use of OA medications.

Understanding rational non-adherence to medications. A discrete choice experiment in a community sample in Australia

BackgroundIn spite of the potential impact upon population health and expenditure, interventions promoting medication adherence have been found to be of moderate effectiveness and cost effectiveness. Understanding the relative influence of factors affecting patient medication adherence decisions and the characteristics of individuals associated with variation in adherence will lead to a better understanding of how future interventions should be designed and targeted. This study aims to explore medication-taking decisions that may underpin intentional medication non-adherence behaviour amongst a community sample and the relative importance of medication specific factors and patient background characteristics contributing to those decisions.MethodsA discrete choice experiment conducted through a web-enabled online survey was used to estimate the relative importance of eight medication factors (immediate and long-term medication harms and benefits, cost, regimen, symptom severity, alcohol restrictions) on the preference to continue taking a medication. To reflect more closely what usually occurs in practice, non-disease specific medication and health terms were used to mimic decisions across multiple medications and conditions.161 general community participants, matching the national Australian census data (age, gender) were recruited through an online panel provider (participation rate: 10%) in 2010.ResultsSix of the eight factors (i.e. immediate and long-term medication harms and benefits, cost, and regimen) had a significant influence on medication choice. Patient background characteristics did not improve the model. Respondents with private health insurance appeared less sensitive to cost then those without private health insurance. In general, health outcomes, framed as a side-effect, were found to have a greater influence over adherence than outcomes framed as therapeutic benefits.ConclusionsMedication-taking decisions are the subject of rational choices, influenced by the attributes of treatments and potentially amenable to intervention through education, strategic pricing and the altering of dosing characteristics. Understanding individual treatment preferences is thus an important step to improving adherence support provision in practice. Re-framing future interventions and policies to support rational and informed individual patient choices, is the way forward to realising the full potential health and economic benefits from the efficacious use of medications.

Interventions to improve medication adherence in coronary disease patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Background Adherence to multiple cardiovascular (CV) medications is a cornerstone of coronary heart disease (CHD) management and prevention, but it is sub-optimal worldwide. This review aimed to examine whether interventions improve adherence to multiple CV medications in a CHD population. Design This study was based on a systematic review and meta-analysis according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Methods Randomised controlled trials were identified by searching multiple databases and reference lists. Studies were selected if they evaluated interventions aiming to improve adherence to multiple CV medications targeting a CHD population and if they provided an appropriate measure of adherence. Interventions were classified as complex or simple interventions. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated and pooled for a meta-analysis. Risk of bias, heterogeneity and publication bias were also assessed. Results Sixteen studies (10,706 patients) were included. The mean age was 62 years (standard deviation (SD) 3.6) and 72% were male. In a pooled analysis, the interventions significantly improved medication adherence (OR 1.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25–1.86; p < 0.001) and there were no significant differences based on intervention type (complex vs simple), components categories and adherence method. There was moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 61%) across the studies. After adjusting for publication bias, the effect size was attenuated but remained significant (OR 1.35; 95% CI 1.09–1.68). Conclusion Interventions to improve adherence to multiple CV medication in a CHD population significantly improved the odds of being adherent. Simple one-component interventions might be a promising way to improve medication adherence in a CHD population, as they would be easier to replicate in different settings and on a large scale.

An economic case for a cardiovascular polypill? A cost analysis of the Kanyini GAP trial

Objective: To measure the costs of a polypill strategy and compare them with those of usual care in people with established cardiovascular disease (CVD) or at similarly high cardiovascular risk.

Action to address the household economic burden of non-communicable diseases

The economic burden on households of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), including cardiovascular diseases, cancer, respiratory diseases, and diabetes, poses major challenges to global poverty alleviation efforts. For patients with NCDs, being uninsured is associated with 2-7-fold higher odds of catastrophic levels of out-of-pocket costs; however, the protection offered by health insurance is often incomplete. To enable coverage of the predictable and long-term costs of treatment, national programmes to extend financial protection should be based on schemes that entail compulsory enrolment or be financed through taxation. Priority should be given to eliminating financial barriers to the uptake of and adherence to interventions that are cost-effective and are designed to help the poor. In concert with programmes to strengthen national health systems and governance arrangements, comprehensive financial protection against the growing burden of NCDs is crucial in meeting the UNs Sustainable Development Goals.

Patients’ and Providers’ Perspectives of a Polypill Strategy to Improve Cardiovascular Prevention in Australian Primary Health Care A Qualitative Study Set Within a Pragmatic Randomized, Controlled Trial

Background—This study explores health provider and patient attitudes toward the use of a cardiovascular polypill as a health service strategy to improve cardiovascular prevention. Methods and Results—In-depth, semistructured interviews (n=94) were conducted with health providers and patients from Australian general practice, Aboriginal community-controlled and government-run Indigenous Health Services participating in a pragmatic randomized controlled trial evaluating a polypill-based strategy for high-risk primary and secondary cardiovascular disease prevention. Interview topics included polypill strategy acceptability, factors affecting adherence, and trial implementation. Transcribed interview data were analyzed thematically and interpretively. Polypill patients commented frequently on cost-savings, ease, and convenience of a daily-dosing pill. Most providers considered a polypill strategy to facilitate improved patient medication use. Indigenous Health Services providers and indigenous patients thought the strategy acceptable and beneficial for indigenous patients given the high disease burden. Providers noted the inflexibility of the fixed dose regimen, with dosages sometimes inappropriate for patients with complex management considerations. Future polypill formulations with varied strengths and classes of medications may overcome this barrier. Many providers suggested the polypill strategy, in its current formulations, might be more suited to high-risk primary prevention patients. Conclusions—The polypill strategy was generally acceptable to patients and providers in cardiovascular prevention. Limitations to provider acceptability of this particular polypill were revealed, as was a perception it might be more suitable for high-risk primary prevention patients, though future combinations could facilitate its use in secondary prevention. Participants suggested a polypill-based strategy as particularly appropriate for lowering the high cardiovascular burden in indigenous populations. Clinical Trial Registration—URL: http://www.anzctr.org.au. ANZCTRN: 12608000583347.

Patient Preferences for a Polypill for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Diseases

Background: Polypill-based strategies have improved patient use of preventive cardiovascular disease (CVD) medications in clinical trials. Continued use in real-world settings relies on patients preferring a polypill over current treatment. Objective: Within a clinical trial assessing a CVD polypill-based strategy on patient adherence (Kanyini Guidelines Adherence with the Polypill study [Kanyini GAP]), we used discrete choice experiment (DCE) to assess the influence of polypill-based treatment attributes and patient characteristics on preferences for CVD preventive treatment. Methods: A DCE survey was administered to Kanyini GAP participants, involving choices between 2 hypothetical treatment options and no treatment for CVD prevention. Attributes delineating a polypill from current treatment were assessed: out-of-pocket costs, tablet number, administration, and prescriber visit frequency. The odds ratios (ORs) for preferring treatment, trade-off between treatment-related attributes, and willingness to pay against other attributes were estimated. Results: In all, 332 of 487 (68%) participants completed the survey. Active treatment, compared with no treatment, was chosen by 93%. Treatment preference decreased with increasing out-of-pocket cost (OR = 0.04; 95% CI = 0.03-0.05) and tablet number (OR = 0.69; 95% CI = 0.59-0.81). Out-of-pocket cost was the most important attribute. Respondents were willing to pay

Understanding Patient Preferences in Medication Nonadherence: A Review of Stated Preference Data

3.45 per month for each tablet reduction. Education and household income significantly influenced treatment preference. Conclusions: Assuming equivalent efficacy and safety of treatment options, the treatment-specific attributes that were assessed and influenced patient preference strongly accord with the posited advantages of the cardiovascular polypill. The study provides promising evidence that improvements in treatment adherence observed in CVD polypill trials may translate to the real world and potentially close treatment gaps in CVD prevention.

Co-payments for health care: what is their real cost?

Nonadherence is a global problem undermining the cost-effectiveness of evidence-based medications. Aligning treatment choices with patient preferences may promote adherent behaviour: eliciting patient treatment preferences may help resolve the problem of nonadherence. As there is no reliable measure of nonadherent behaviour that can be used to derive preferences, stated-preference techniques offer a robust alternative. To understand patient preferences in medication nonadherence, we systematically appraised full-text English studies (from database inception to 24 February 2014) involving participants evaluating hypothetical scenarios to elicit preferences as an explicit means to understand medication nonadherence. Study characteristics (e.g. setting, disease, stated-preference method), attribute type and influence on choice were extracted. Seventeen full-text articles (4,456 patients) were included in the review, which reports stated-preference elicitation studies across a wide range of chronic and acute conditions. All studies were conducted in high-income settings. The influence of drug-related factors was predominant in patients’ preferences for treatment. Patients preferred efficacious over safe medications except when considering the duration of therapy, but dosing and cost appeared more important when contemplating adherence. Patient characteristics, particularly medication experience, significantly influenced preferences. A disparity between stated preferences for treatment and adherence was reported. When using stated-preference techniques to understand nonadherence, this manuscript highlights that there is much room for methodological development. Studies outside of high-income settings are needed, particularly in relation to chronic diseases, for which nonadherence poses a substantial economic burden to health systems and patients. To inform the problem of sustaining adherence, prospective research is needed to understand how preferences change with time. The usefulness of stated-preference techniques to inform policy and practice requires a better understanding of how stated preferences relate to actual adherence behaviour.