The need for effective digital solutions to enhance adherence to oral anti-cancer medicines in adults: a systematic review of reviews (Preprint)

BACKGROUND Adherence to anti-cancer medicines is critical for the success of cancer treatments, however, non-adherence is still challenging while evidence of adherence interventions in cancer is limited. OBJECTIVE This systematic review aimed to synthesise evidence of available reviews of interventions to improve adherence to oral anti-cancer medicines in adult cancer survivors. METHODS A comprehensive search was undertaken on seven electronic databases and three oncology journals. Two reviewers independently conducted study selection, quality assessment using AMSTAR 2, and data extraction of selected reviews. The PRISMA-2020 checklist was adapted to report results. RESULTS Twenty-eight reviews were included for a narrative synthesis. The overall quality of systematic reviews was low. Four main adherence-promoting strategies were education, reminder, behaviour and monitoring, and multi-component. Digital technology-based interventions were reported in most reviews (n=26). Few interventions applied theories (n=10), design frameworks (n=2), or engaged stakeholders (n=1) in the development processes. The effectiveness of interventions was inconsistent between and within reviews. However, interventions using multiple adherence-promoting strategies were more likely to be effective than single-strategy interventions (11 reviews). Unidirectional communication (7 reviews) and technology alone (11 reviews) were not sufficient to demonstrate improvement in adherence outcomes. Nurses and pharmacists play a critical role in promoting patients’ adherence to oral cancer therapies, especially with the support of digital technologies (6 reviews). CONCLUSIONS Multi-component interventions are potentially effective in promoting patients’ adherence to oral-anti cancer medicines. The seamless integration of digital solutions with direct clinical contacts is likely to be effective in promoting adherence. It is important for future research in developing comprehensive digital adherence interventions to be evidence-based, theory-based, and rigorously evaluated.

Assessing Medication Adherence Barriers to Short-Term Oral Antibiotic Treatment in Primary Care—Development and Validation of a Self-Report Questionnaire (BIOTICA)

Background: Pharmacists are increasingly involved in strategies to fight antimicrobial resistance by ensuring optimised antibiotic (AB) use, including adherence support. Successful adherence interventions should be tailored to patients’ barriers and validated instruments are needed. This study aimed to identify adherence barriers to AB treatment, develop a self-report questionnaire, and validate it in outpatients. Method: Adherence barriers were identified through a systematic literature search and focus group discussion. Unmodifiable and irrelevant barriers were excluded from further processing. A validation study assessed the questionnaire’s internal reliability and construct validity by comparing the questionnaire’s score with electronically monitored adherence data. Results: A 15-item questionnaire was created. Overall, 68 patients were included in the construct validation analysis (60.3% female). The mean consecutive taking adherence was 88% and the most frequently reported barriers were “worries about side-effects” (37%) and “having swallowing difficulties” (19%). Three items were excluded from the questionnaire, which was supported by an increase of Cronbach’s alpha (0.69 to 0.70). The 12-item version’s score correlated significantly with medication adherence rate (r = −0.34, p < 0.01). Conclusion: The self-report questionnaire is a reliable and valid tool to pre-emptively assess adherence barriers in outpatients prescribed ABs. In the future, appropriate adherence interventions can be matched to barriers and tested in a pilot intervention study.

Researchers’ perspectives on methodological challenges and outcomes selection in interventional studies targeting medication adherence in rheumatic diseases: an OMERACT-adherence study

Background Research on adherence interventions in rheumatology is limited by methodological issues, particularly heterogeneous outcomes. We aimed to describe researchers’ experiences with conducting interventional studies targeting medication adherence in rheumatology and their perspectives on establishing core outcomes. Methods Semi-structured interviews using audio conference were conducted with researchers who had conducted an adherence study of any design in the past 10 years. Data collection and thematic analysis were performed iteratively, until saturation. Results We interviewed 13 researchers, most of whom worked in academia and specialized in epidemiology and/or health services research. We identified three themes: 1) improving measurement of adherence (considering all phases of adherence, using appropriate and relevant measures, and establishing clinically meaningful thresholds); 2) challenges in designing and appraising adherence intervention studies (considering the confusion over a plethora of outcomes, difficulties with powering studies to demonstrate meaningful changes, and suboptimal descriptions of adherence interventions in published studies); and 3) advancing outcome assessment in adherence intervention studies (capturing rationale for developing a core domain set as well as recommendations and anticipated challenges by participants). Conclusions Uniquely gathering perspectives from international adherence researchers, our findings led to researcher-informed recommendations for improving adherence research including specifying the targeted adherence phase in designing interventions and studies and providing a glossary of terms to promote consistency in reporting. We also identified recommendations for developing a core domain set for interventional studies targeting medication adherence including involvement of patients, clinicians, and other stakeholders and methodological and practical considerations to establish rigor and support uptake.

Modeling Adherence Interventions Among Youth with HIV in the United States: Clinical and Economic Projections

The Adolescent Medicine Trials Network for HIV/AIDS Interventions is evaluating treatment adherence interventions (AI) to improve virologic suppression (VS) among youth with HIV (YWH). Using a microsimulation model, we compared two strategies: standard-of-care (SOC) and a hypothetical 12-month AI that increased cohort-level VS in YWH in care by an absolute ten percentage points and cost $100/month/person. Projected outcomes included primary HIV transmissions, deaths and life-expectancy, lifetime HIV-related costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs, $/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]). Compared to SOC, AI would reduce HIV transmissions by 15% and deaths by 12% at 12 months. AI would improve discounted life expectancy/person by 8 months at an added lifetime cost/person of $5,300, resulting in an ICER of $7,900/QALY. AI would be cost-effective at $2,000/month/person or with efficacies as low as a 1 percentage point increase in VS. YWH-targeted adherence interventions with even modest efficacy could improve life expectancy, prevent onward HIV transmissions, and be cost-effective.

Effectiveness of interventions for optimising adherence to treatments for the prevention and management of scars: A systematic review

Objectives: To identify the adherence interventions used with people receiving treatments to prevent or manage scarring, the effectiveness of these interventions, and the theoretical frameworks on which these interventions were based. Data sources: Databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsychINFO and OTseeker) were searched (09.10.2020) with no date or language restrictions. Grey literature databases, clinical trial registries and references lists of key papers were also searched. Review methods: Eligible randomised controlled trials included people using treatments for scarring following skin wounds, interventions that may improve adherence, and outcomes measuring adherence. Risk of bias (selection, performance, detection, attrition, reporting) and certainty of evidence (inconsistency, imprecision, indirectness, publication bias) were assessed. Results: Four randomised trials were included with 224 participants (17 children) with burn scars. Interventions involved educational (three trials) or technology-based components (four trials) and ranged in length from two weeks to six months. All four trials reported greater adherence rates in the intervention group compared with standard practice [standardised mean difference = 1.50 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.91–2.08); 2.01 (95% CI 1.05–2.98); odds ratio = 0.28 (95% CI = 0.11–0.69)]. One trial did not report original data. The certainty of evidence was very low. Conclusion: Adherence interventions using education or technology for people receiving burn scar treatment may improve adherence. Further studies are needed particularly in children, with a focus on including outcomes of importance to patients (e.g. quality of life) and identifying core components of effective adherence interventions using theoretical frameworks.