Influence of the mode of administration on the results of medication adherence questionnaires

Assessment of hydroxychloroquine blood levels in Sjögren's disease patients: drug adherence and clinical associations

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been used to treat Sjögren's disease (SjD) patients. However, there are no studies evaluating drug adherence through HCQ blood levels, pharmacy refill (PR) and medication adherence questionnaires. The relationship of HCQ blood levels with glandular/extraglandular disease parameters was also poorly assessed. This cross-sectional observational study included 74 adult SjD patients, who were receiving a stable HCQ dose (4-5.5 mg/kg/day, actual weight) for at least 3 months before study inclusion. HCQ blood levels were quantified by high-performance liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry. Adherence was assessed by PR and Medida de Adesão aos Tratamentos (MAT) questionnaire. The following parameters were evaluated: Xerostomia Inventory, Ocular Surface Disease Index, EULAR (European League Against Rheumatism) Sjögren's Syndrome Disease Activity Index, EULAR Sjögren's Syndrome Patient Reported Index, Schirmer's I test and non-stimulated/stimulated salivary flow rates. HCQ blood levels were 775.3(25.0-2,568.6)ng/mL. Eleven patients (14.9%) had HCQ blood levels < 200ng/mL (non-adherent group); 11(14.9%), 200-499ng/mL (sub-therapeutic levels group); and 52(70.2%), ≥ 500ng/mL (adherent group). PR classified incorrectly all non-adherent/sub-therapeutic patients and 2/52(3.9%) adherent patients. Using MAT, the overall misclassification was 24/52(46.2%) in the adherent group, and were correctly identified 9/11(81.8%) patients in non-adherent and 7/11(63.6%) in sub-therapeutic groups. MAT sensitivity and specificity to identify non-adherent/sub-therapeutic patients were 72.7% and 53.9%, respectively. The three groups were comparable regarding glandular/extraglandular disease parameters (p > 0.05). The assessment of HCQ blood levels is a promising tool for evaluating drug adherence in SjD. This is particularly crucial as one-third of patients exhibited non-adherence/sub-therapeutic levels, and neither PR nor MAT reliably identified these patients.

Quality of measurement properties of medication adherence instruments in cardiovascular diseases and type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Medication adherence has a major impact on reducing mortality and healthcare costs related to the treatment of cardiovascular diseases and diabetes mellitus. Selecting the best patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) among the many available for this kind of patient is extremely important. This study aims to critically assess, compare and synthesize the quality of the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures to assess medication adherence among patients with cardiovascular diseases and/or type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

This review followed the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines and was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The searches were performed in Web of Science, SCOPUS, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, LILACS, PsycINFO, and ProQuest (gray literature).

RESULTS

A total of 110 records encompassing 27 different PROMs were included in the review. The included records were published between 1986 and 2023, most of which reported studies conducted in the United States and were published in English. None of the PROMs were classified in the category "a", thus being recommended for use due to the quality of its measurement properties. The PROMs that should not be recommended for use (category "c") are the MTA, GMAS, DMAS-7, MALMAS, ARMS-D, and 5-item questionnaire. The remaining PROMs, e.g., MMAS-8, SMAQ, MEDS, MNPS, ARMS-12, MGT, MTA-OA, MTA-Insulin, LMAS-14, MARS-5, A-14, ARMS-10, IADMAS, MAQ, MMAS-5, ProMAS, ARMS-7, 3-item questionnaire, AS, 12-item questionnaire, and Mascard were considered as having the potential to be recommended for use (category "b").

CONCLUSION

None of the included PROMs met the criteria for being classified as trusted and recommended for use for patients with cardiovascular diseases and/or type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, 21 PROMs have the potential to be recommended for use, but further studies are needed to ensure their quality based on the COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019129109.

An electronic patient-reported outcomes measurement system in paediatric orthopaedics

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the reliability, review differences and assess patient satisfaction of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) compared with paper PROMs.

METHODS

Participants between 12 and 19 years of age with a knee-related primary complaint were randomized into two groups. Group 1 completed paper PROMs followed by electronic, while Group 2 received the electronic followed by paper. PROMs included the Pediatric International Knee Documentation Committee (Pedi-IKDC), Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) Pediatric Functional Activity Brief Scale (HSS Pedi-FABS), Tegner Activity Level Scale, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), PedsQL Teen and a satisfaction survey.

RESULTS

In all, 87 participants were enrolled with one excluded due to incomplete PROMs. Of the 86 participants, 54 were female and 32 were male with an average age of 14.3 years (12 to 18). A high degree of reliability was found when comparing the paper and electronic versions of the Pedi-IKDC (0.946; p < 0.001), HSS Pedi-FABS (0.923; p < 0.001), PedsQL Teen (0.894; p < 0.001), Tegner Activity Level Scale before injury (0.848; p < 0.001) and the Tegner Activity Level Scale after (0.930; p < 0.001). Differences were noted between the VAS scores, with paper scores being significantly higher than electronic (5.3 versus 4.6; p < 0.001). While not significant, a trend was noted in which electronic PROMs took, overall, less time than paper (10.0 mins versus 11.2 mins; p = 0.096).Of all participants, 69.8% preferred the electronic PROMs, 67.4% felt they were faster, 93.0% stated they would complete forms at home prior to appointments and 91.8% were not concerned about the safety/privacy of electronic forms.

CONCLUSION

PROMs captured electronically were reliable when compared with paper. Electronic PROMs may be quicker, will not require manual scoring and are preferred by patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.