The Barriers Assessment Tool-A Patient-Centered Measure of Adherence Barriers in Pediatric Kidney Transplantation.

OBJECTIVE: Assessing barriers to adherence provides helpful information to clinicians. The objective of this study was to describe the clinical utility of the Barriers Assessment Tool (BAT) using clinical data for a large, midwestern U.S. pediatric kidney transplant program. METHODS: Focus group and clinical data were obtained during post-transplant medical visits. Qualitative and quantitative assessment methods were utilized to describe patient and caregiver feedback on the BAT, clinical utility, concordance between reporters, and the effect of interventions on subsequent assessment and electronically measured adherence. RESULTS: Patients were willing to discuss adherence issues with their care team. There was substantial agreement between patients and caregivers at two timepoints. If a barrier was not addressed, 89.6% (43/48) of patients and 85.9% (67/78) of caregivers reported the same BAT scores from the first to second assessment. When barriers were addressed with a clinic-based intervention, 82% of caregivers reported no adherence barriers. No significant change was found for patient-reported barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Standardized assessment of barriers to medication adherence provides actionable information to clinicians. Standardized assessment of adherence barriers may give clinicians opportunities to help patients and caregivers overcome these barriers which can decrease risk of rejection.

A Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Adherence Promotion Strategies to Improve Rejection Rates in Adolescent Kidney Transplant Recipients.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Nonadherence to medical regimens increases the risk of graft loss among adolescent and young adult recipients of kidney transplants. Interventions that improve adherence may decrease rejection rates, but their perceived costs are a barrier to clinical implementation. We developed a model to assess the cost-effectiveness of an adherence promotion strategy, the Medication Adherence Promotion System (MAPS). STUDY DESIGN: Simulation-based. Data sources included published articles indexed in Medline or referenced in bibliographies of relevant English-language articles. Data on costs and outcomes were taken from a single clinical center. SETTING & POPULATION: US adolescent patients after their first kidney transplant. INTERVENTION: Usual posttransplant care versus usual care plus MAPS. OUTCOME: Effectiveness measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs measured in 2020 US dollars. MODEL, PERSPECTIVE, & TIMEFRAME: Markov state transition decision model. We used a health care system perspective with a lifelong time horizon. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, MAPS was more effective and less costly than usual care. MAPS cost $9,106 per patient less than usual care and resulted in a gain of 0.32 QALYs. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, MAPS was cost saving 100% of the time. Extending results to a program level with 100 patients, any adherence promotion intervention similar in effectiveness to MAPS would cost less than $50,000/QALY if the start-up costs were <$2.5 million and annual costs <$188,000. Strategies with costs similar to MAPS that reduce the risk of rejection by as little as 3% would also have similar cost-effectiveness. LIMITATIONS: Estimates of components and costs for MAPS were based on a single center. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence promotion strategies with costs similar to MAPS can be cost-effective as long as they reduce rejection rates by at least 3%. This model can be applied to study the cost-effectiveness of adherence promotion strategies with varying costs and outcomes.

Predicting acute rejection in children, adolescents, and young adults with a kidney transplant by assessing barriers to taking medication.

BACKGROUND: Nonadherence to immunosuppression is common among pediatric, adolescent, and young adult kidney transplant recipients and a leading cause of graft loss. Assessing barriers to medication adherence in clinical practice may identify patients at risk for rejection and provide therapeutic targets. METHODS: Kidney transplant patients and/or their caregivers were assessed for 14 barriers to medication adherence using the barriers assessment tool. We compared rejection rates between patients with at least one reported adherence barrier to those without reported adherence barriers using a Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox proportional hazard models to adjust for other mediators of acute rejection at 2 years following barriers assessment. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients were assessed for barriers to adherence. Over the 2-year observation period, 22 patients developed biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR). Kaplan-Meier estimates show that patients with an identified barrier to adherence were more likely to have BPAR (p = 0.02) than patients without an identified barrier in the 24 months following barriers assessment. The median time to rejection for patients who experienced acute rejection was 175.5 days (IQR 63-276 days) from the time of barriers assessment. An identified barrier to adherence remained the only statistically significant predictor of BPAR with Cox modeling (HR 2.6, p = 0.04), after accounting for age, sex, and race. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric and adolescent kidney transplant recipients with identified adherence barriers are at increased risk for acute rejection. Barriers to adherence provide a potentially modifiable therapeutic target that can be assessed in clinic to guide targeted interventions.

Assessing barriers to adherence in routine clinical care for pediatric kidney transplant patients.

Patient-identified barriers to immunosuppressive medications are associated with poor adherence and negative clinical outcomes in transplant patients. Assessment of adherence barriers is not part of routine post-transplant care, and studies regarding implementing such a process in a reliable way are lacking. Using the Model for Improvement and PDSA cycles, we implemented a system to identify adherence barriers, including patient-centered design of a barriers assessment tool, identification of eligible patients, clear roles for clinic staff, and creating a culture of non-judgmental discussion around adherence. We performed time-series analysis of our process measure. Secondary analyses examined the endorsement and concordance of adherence barriers between patient-caregiver dyads. After three methods of testing, the most reliable delivery system was an EHR-integrated tablet that alerted staff of patient eligibility for assessment. Barriers were endorsed by 35% of caregivers (n=85) and 43% of patients (n=60). The most frequently patient-endorsed barriers were forgetting, poor taste, and side effects. Caregivers endorsed forgetting and side effects. Concordance between patient-caregiver dyads was fair (k=0.299). Standardized adherence barriers assessment is feasible in the clinical care of pediatric kidney transplant patients. Features necessary for success included automation, redundant systems with designated staff to identify and mitigate failures, aligned reporting structures, and reliable measurement approaches. Future studies will examine whether barriers predict clinical outcomes (eg, organ rejection, graft loss).