Cargando…

44190 Comparing the Accuracy of Different Tools in Identifying Glaucoma Medication Non-adherence

ABSTRACT IMPACT: Medication non-adherence is a widespread problem in glaucoma care, and this abstract shows that a free and easy to implement tool can be used to accurately screen and identify patients who are not adherent to their glaucoma medication. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: To compare the accuracy of ph...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cho, Juno, Niziol, Leslie, Lee, Paul, Heisler, Michele, Resnicow, Kenneth, Musch, David C, Newman-Casey, Paula Anne
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cambridge University Press 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8827975/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cts.2021.725
_version_ 1784647760506519552
author Cho, Juno
Niziol, Leslie
Lee, Paul
Heisler, Michele
Resnicow, Kenneth
Musch, David C
Newman-Casey, Paula Anne
author_facet Cho, Juno
Niziol, Leslie
Lee, Paul
Heisler, Michele
Resnicow, Kenneth
Musch, David C
Newman-Casey, Paula Anne
author_sort Cho, Juno
collection PubMed
description ABSTRACT IMPACT: Medication non-adherence is a widespread problem in glaucoma care, and this abstract shows that a free and easy to implement tool can be used to accurately screen and identify patients who are not adherent to their glaucoma medication. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: To compare the accuracy of pharmacy refill data and five measures of self-reported adherence in identifying patients with poor electronically monitored glaucoma medication adherence. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Glaucoma patients (age ≥40, poor self-reported adherence, and ≥1 medication) recruited at the University of Michigan completed five surveys of adherence and 3-months of electronically monitored medication adherence; pharmacy refill data were obtained. Electronically monitored adherence was summarized monthly as percent of doses taken on time. Median monthly adherence ≤80% was considered non-adherent. Pharmacy refill data were reported as the proportion of days covered. The accuracy of the measures in predicting ≤80% adherence was assessed with receiver operating characteristic curves such as estimation of area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: 95 patients completed electronic monitoring with a median monthly adherence of 74% (±21%); 53 patients (56%) were non-adherent. Pharmacy refill adherence was not significantly correlated with electronically monitored medication adherence (r=0.12, p=0.2). A single-item adherence question (‘Over the past month, what percentage of your drops do you think you took correctly?’) had the largest correlation with electronically monitored adherence (r=0.47, p<0.0001), the largest AUC for predicting non-adherence (AUC= 0.76, [95% Confidence Interval = 0.66, 0.87]), best accuracy (71%, [61, 82]), and good sensitivity (84%, [73, 96]). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: A free, single-item screening question ('Over the past month, what percentage of your drops do you think you took correctly?') offers an easy-to-implement tool for identifying glaucoma patients with poor medication adherence in clinical practice.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8827975
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Cambridge University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88279752022-02-28 44190 Comparing the Accuracy of Different Tools in Identifying Glaucoma Medication Non-adherence Cho, Juno Niziol, Leslie Lee, Paul Heisler, Michele Resnicow, Kenneth Musch, David C Newman-Casey, Paula Anne J Clin Transl Sci Translational Science, Policy, & Health Outcomes Science ABSTRACT IMPACT: Medication non-adherence is a widespread problem in glaucoma care, and this abstract shows that a free and easy to implement tool can be used to accurately screen and identify patients who are not adherent to their glaucoma medication. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: To compare the accuracy of pharmacy refill data and five measures of self-reported adherence in identifying patients with poor electronically monitored glaucoma medication adherence. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Glaucoma patients (age ≥40, poor self-reported adherence, and ≥1 medication) recruited at the University of Michigan completed five surveys of adherence and 3-months of electronically monitored medication adherence; pharmacy refill data were obtained. Electronically monitored adherence was summarized monthly as percent of doses taken on time. Median monthly adherence ≤80% was considered non-adherent. Pharmacy refill data were reported as the proportion of days covered. The accuracy of the measures in predicting ≤80% adherence was assessed with receiver operating characteristic curves such as estimation of area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: 95 patients completed electronic monitoring with a median monthly adherence of 74% (±21%); 53 patients (56%) were non-adherent. Pharmacy refill adherence was not significantly correlated with electronically monitored medication adherence (r=0.12, p=0.2). A single-item adherence question (‘Over the past month, what percentage of your drops do you think you took correctly?’) had the largest correlation with electronically monitored adherence (r=0.47, p<0.0001), the largest AUC for predicting non-adherence (AUC= 0.76, [95% Confidence Interval = 0.66, 0.87]), best accuracy (71%, [61, 82]), and good sensitivity (84%, [73, 96]). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: A free, single-item screening question ('Over the past month, what percentage of your drops do you think you took correctly?') offers an easy-to-implement tool for identifying glaucoma patients with poor medication adherence in clinical practice. Cambridge University Press 2021-03-30 /pmc/articles/PMC8827975/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cts.2021.725 Text en © The Association for Clinical and Translational Science 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Translational Science, Policy, & Health Outcomes Science
Cho, Juno
Niziol, Leslie
Lee, Paul
Heisler, Michele
Resnicow, Kenneth
Musch, David C
Newman-Casey, Paula Anne
44190 Comparing the Accuracy of Different Tools in Identifying Glaucoma Medication Non-adherence
title 44190 Comparing the Accuracy of Different Tools in Identifying Glaucoma Medication Non-adherence
title_full 44190 Comparing the Accuracy of Different Tools in Identifying Glaucoma Medication Non-adherence
title_fullStr 44190 Comparing the Accuracy of Different Tools in Identifying Glaucoma Medication Non-adherence
title_full_unstemmed 44190 Comparing the Accuracy of Different Tools in Identifying Glaucoma Medication Non-adherence
title_short 44190 Comparing the Accuracy of Different Tools in Identifying Glaucoma Medication Non-adherence
title_sort 44190 comparing the accuracy of different tools in identifying glaucoma medication non-adherence
topic Translational Science, Policy, & Health Outcomes Science
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8827975/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cts.2021.725
work_keys_str_mv AT chojuno 44190comparingtheaccuracyofdifferenttoolsinidentifyingglaucomamedicationnonadherence
AT niziolleslie 44190comparingtheaccuracyofdifferenttoolsinidentifyingglaucomamedicationnonadherence
AT leepaul 44190comparingtheaccuracyofdifferenttoolsinidentifyingglaucomamedicationnonadherence
AT heislermichele 44190comparingtheaccuracyofdifferenttoolsinidentifyingglaucomamedicationnonadherence
AT resnicowkenneth 44190comparingtheaccuracyofdifferenttoolsinidentifyingglaucomamedicationnonadherence
AT muschdavidc 44190comparingtheaccuracyofdifferenttoolsinidentifyingglaucomamedicationnonadherence
AT newmancaseypaulaanne 44190comparingtheaccuracyofdifferenttoolsinidentifyingglaucomamedicationnonadherence