Shi Yue-Xian, Liu Chun-Xia, Liu Fei, Zhang Hai-Ming, Yu Ming-Ming, Jin Yin-Hui, Shang Shao-Mei, Fu Ying-Xin
School of Nursing, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Department of Urinary Surgery, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Front Pharmacol. 2020 Oct 20;11:578887. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2020.578887. eCollection 2020.
Immunosuppressant non-adherence is a widespread problem among solid organ recipients. With the newly published clinical trials, the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) based systematic review of adherence-enhancing interventions on immunosuppressant adherence in solid organ recipients has not been completed. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we compared the efficacy of adherence-enhancing interventions versus routine intervention, as performed with RCTs, on immunosuppressant adherence in solid organ transplantation recipients.
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL full text, and PsycINFO were searched from database inception to December 2019. This review was conducted following the PRISMA's reporting guidelines and according to the principles recommended by Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review.
The search yielded 10,479 articles. A total of 27 articles (26 studies) with 715 participants were included in our analysis. Results from the meta-analysis revealed that as compared with that of the routine intervention group, the rates of overall adherence, dosing adherence, and timing adherence were significantly increased within the adherence-enhancing intervention group, with the pooled risk ratio (RR) of overall adherence = 1.17, [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07 to 1.28; p = 0.0006]; RR of dosing adherence = 1.21 (95% CI: 1.08 to 1.36, p = 0.001); RR of timing adherence = 1.16 (95% CI: 1.03 to 1.29, p = 0.01). There was a significantly increased adherence score in the adherence-enhancing intervention group; however, no statistical significance on the immunosuppressant blood concentration was found between the two study groups. Results obtained from a subgroup analysis shown interventions led by a multidisciplinary team, both the assessment time at 6 months and 12 months demonstrated a significantly increased adherence rate in the intervention group compared with the control group.
The findings of this report indicate that clinicians (doctors and nurses) should maintain a long-term intervention protocol to ensure immunosuppressant adherence within solid organ transplant recipients. To accomplish this goal, we recommend a multidisciplinary team-led, comprehensive intervention approach combined with mobile health monitoring for the administration of an effective immunosuppressive therapy regimen.
免疫抑制剂治疗依从性不佳是实体器官移植受者中普遍存在的问题。随着新临床试验的发表,基于随机对照试验(RCT)对提高实体器官移植受者免疫抑制剂治疗依从性的干预措施进行的系统评价尚未完成。在这项系统评价和荟萃分析中,我们比较了提高依从性干预措施与常规干预措施(如RCT中所采用的)对实体器官移植受者免疫抑制剂治疗依从性的疗效。
检索了从数据库建立至2019年12月的PubMed、Embase、Cochrane图书馆、CINAHL全文数据库和PsycINFO。本评价遵循PRISMA报告指南,并根据Cochrane系统评价手册推荐的原则进行。
检索共获得10479篇文章。我们的分析纳入了27篇文章(26项研究),共715名参与者。荟萃分析结果显示,与常规干预组相比,提高依从性干预组的总体依从率、给药依从率和时间依从率显著提高,总体依从性的合并风险比(RR)=1.17,[95%置信区间(CI):1.07至1.28;p = 0.0006];给药依从性的RR = 1.21(95%CI:1.08至1.36,p = 0.001);时间依从性的RR = 1.16(95%CI:1.03至1.29,p = 0.01)。提高依从性干预组的依从性得分显著提高;然而,两组之间在免疫抑制剂血药浓度方面未发现统计学差异。亚组分析结果显示,多学科团队主导的干预措施,在6个月和12个月的评估时间点,干预组的依从率均显著高于对照组。
本报告的研究结果表明,临床医生(医生和护士)应维持长期干预方案,以确保实体器官移植受者的免疫抑制剂治疗依从性。为实现这一目标,我们建议采用多学科团队主导的综合干预方法,并结合移动健康监测,以实施有效的免疫抑制治疗方案。