Adolescent non-adherence: prevalence and consequences in liver transplant recipients.

Few studies have examined the prevalence, demographic variables and adverse consequences associated with non-adherence to immunosuppressive therapy in the adolescent liver transplant population. Our hypothesis is that a significant proportion of adolescent liver transplant recipients exhibit non-adherence to medical regimens and that certain demographic and medical condition-related characteristics can be identified as potential predictors of non-adherent behavior. Furthermore, non-adherence leads to a greater incidence of morbidity and mortality in this population as compared with the adherent subset of adolescent patients. We reviewed the charts of 97 patients from 1987 to 2002 who by December of 2002 had survived at least 1 yr post-transplant and were followed by the Pediatric Liver Transplant Service at any point during their adolescent period (ages of 12-21). Non-adherence was defined as documentation of a report of non-adherence by a patient, parent or healthcare provider that was recorded in the patient's legal medical record. Descriptive statistics were used to determine the prevalence, demographic variables and adverse outcomes associated with non-adherence to immunosuppressive therapy. Categorical variables were analyzed using the chi-square test or the Fisher exact probability test. The unpaired Student's t-test was used to analyze the continuous variable of age at transplant. Using the inclusion criteria, a total of 97 patients represented the study sample of whom 37 subjects (38.1%) were defined as non-adherent and 60 (61.8%) were adherent. Non-adherent subjects were more likely to be female, older (>18 yr) and from a single-parent household. There was no significant difference in immunosuppressive regimen between non-adherent and adherent patients. Non-adherence was significantly (p<0.025) associated with lower socioeconomic status (SES), older age at transplant (p<0.005, 95% CI: -5.5 to -.99, Student's t-test) and episodes of late acute rejection (p<.001). Non-adherence was also significantly associated with re-transplantation and death secondary to chronic rejection by the Fisher exact test (p<0.006 and p<0.05, respectively). Non-adherence to immunosuppressive therapy is a prevalent problem that is correlated with certain demographic and medical condition-related risk factors and more frequent adverse consequences in the adolescent liver transplant population. The greater incidence of late acute rejection, death and re-transplantation owing to chronic rejection in non-adherent patients suggests that non-adherence is significantly associated with an increased risk of morbidity and mortality. Further investigation to identify patients at greatest risk for non-adherence is necessary to design the most effective intervention to increase patient survival and well being.

Differences in treatment preferences between persons who enrol and do not enrol in a clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To quantitatively compare preferences for treatment between persons who enrolled in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and those who were eligible but chose not to enrol. INTERVENTIONS: Participants' thresholds for treatment were determined using a probability trade-off technique. Pertinent health states were described. If not taking Aspirin, the probabilities of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and major bleeding were given. Given the risks and benefits of chronic Aspirin therapy, a systematic approach was used to determine patients' thresholds for treatment (the smallest reduction in stroke or MI risk of which patients were willing to take Aspirin). RESULTS: Of 54 participants, 42 enrolled in the RCT, and 12 did not. Compared with persons who enrolled, those who did not enrol required significantly greater increments in treatment benefit to be willing to take Aspirin. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows differences in thresholds for treatment between persons who enrolled in a clinical trial and those who chose not to. Such attitudinal differences may lead to difficulty in the interpretation of clinical trials, especially those using health-related quality-of-life measures. More studies are needed to determine whether the attitudinal differences affect the generalization of results from clinical trials.

Patient preference-based treatment thresholds and recommendations: a comparison of decision-analytic modeling with the probability-tradeoff technique.

BACKGROUND: Decision analysis (DA) and the probability-tradeoff technique (PTOT) are patient preference-based methods of determining optimal therapy for individuals. Using aspirin therapy for the primary prevention of stroke and myocardial infarction (MI) in elderly persons as an example, the objective of this study was to determine whether group-level treatment thresholds and individual-level treatment recommendations derived using PTOT are identical to those of DA incorporating the patients' own values. METHODS: Persons in a pilot study of the efficacy of aspirin in the prevention of stroke and MI were asked to participate. Participant values and utilities for pertinent health states (e.g., minor and major stroke, MI, major bleeding episode) were determined. Then, in three hypothetical clinical situations in which the chance of stroke or MI was varied, PTOT was used to directly determine treatment thresholds for aspirin therapy (i.e., the smallest reduction in MI or stroke risk for which participants would be willing to take aspirin). Using DA modeling, with the same probabilities of events as in the PTOT exercise and incorporating participants' own values, treatment thresholds for the three clinical situations were determined. The thresholds determined by the two approaches were compared. Finally, based on these treatment thresholds, using the best estimates of the efficacy of aspirin to prevent first-time stroke and MI, PTOT and DA treatment recommendations for individual participants were compared. RESULTS: The 42 participants reported that a major stroke was the least desirable health state, followed by MI, minor stroke, and major bleeding. The minimum risk reduction required to take aspirin was greater for MI prevention compared with stroke prevention. For the two clinical situations in which the hypothetical efficacy of aspirin to prevent stroke was varied, treatment thresholds for the PTOT versus DA approaches differed (p < 0.04), but this difference was not significant (p = 0.19) for the MI-based clinical situation. Using the best estimate of the efficacy of aspirin to prevent first-time stroke and MI, PTOT and DA treatment recommendations whether or not to take aspirin were discordant for 38% of participants (16 of 42) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patient preference-based group-level treatment thresholds and individual-level treatment recommendations can differ significantly depending on whether PTOT or DA is used, apparently because the two emphasize different aspects of the decision-making process. DA theory assumes that effective therapeutic decision making should maximize both quality and quantity of life; with PTOT, the emphasis for effective clinical decision making allows patients to be fully engaged in the process, thus hopefully leading to fully informed decisions that may result in satisfaction and compliance.