Background:
Medication adherence is a major concern in public health. It is fully established that immunosuppressive therapy (IT) and concomitant medications affect transplant outcomes in the pediatric population, showing interest in adherence to this therapy. The aim of the present review was to report on medication adherence in pediatric population post-transplantation. This will enable us to know the situation in this particular population.
Methods:
A literature search was performed using the MEDLINE database. Studies that were published from January 1999 to January 2016 in English language and which investigated medication adherence in pediatric transplantation were included. The type of organ and the methods used to assess medication adherence were studied.
Results:
A total of 281 records were identified, from which 34 studies were selected: 38% (n=13) on kidney transplantation, 32% (n=11) on liver transplantation, and 23% (n=10) on the transplantation of other organs. Medication adherence was found to be lower than 80% in two-thirds of the studies (64%), and varied from 22% to 97%. This wide range was explained in part by the important heterogeneity of assessment methods among studies. The methods used were objective, non-objective, or combined both types. Most studies did not fully describe the data collected: the time since transplantation, the period over which adherence was assessed, the population, the medications, and the threshold discriminating adherence and non-adherence.
Conclusion:
The present study found poor medication adherence in the pediatric population post-transplantation. There was a wide range of medication adherence, explained largely by the heterogeneity of assessment methods. Future studies must consider the characteristics of each methodology, but also the threshold defining adherence should be chosen on the basis of clinical outcomes, and describe all data collected to gain precision. To improve adherence in this population, it is essential to identify factors influencing medication (IT and concomitant medications) adherence.
Continuous intravenous (IV) infusion has been shown to be the best option to administer vancomycin because of its time-dependent bactericidal activity. Available IV vancomycin dosing guidelines in pediatrics with normal renal function leads to less than 50% of patients achieving a vancomycin serum concentration (Css) in the target range (15-20 mg/L). The primary objective of this study was to prospectively validate an age-based dosing regimen in pediatric oncology-hematology. The secondary objective was to investigate the influence on Css attainment of different variables. A continuous IV dosing nomogram was built by retrospective study (2000-2010) on Bayesian dosing adjustments performed in 161 patients. This study assessed the prospective validation of this age-based nomogram and the influence on Css attainment of variables as the gender, underlying disease (oncology or hematology), and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) before receiving vancomycin therapy. A total of 94 patients aged from 4.3 months to 17.9 years old with normal renal function were eligible for the prospective validation. Fifty-five of those patients (58.5%) achieved the target range of vancomycin Css. There was no significant difference between age groups (P = 0.816) and no influence of gender (P = 0.500). There was a nonsignificant trend to a better target attainment in oncology patients (69.2% vs. hematology 54.4%, P = 0.142) and patients who did not undergo HSCT (63.3% vs. 33.3%, P = 0.031). This study proposed an age-based nomogram prospectively validated which near 60% of patients of each age class achieving the target range of Css.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.