Nonadherence to immunosuppressants is recognized to occur after renal transplantation, but the size of its impact on transplant survival is not known. A systematic literature search identified 325 studies (in 324 articles) published from 1980 to 2001 reporting the frequency and impact of nonadherence in adult renal transplant recipients. Thirty-six studies meeting the inclusion criteria for further review were grouped into cross-sectional and cohort studies and case series. Meta-analysis was used to estimate the size of the impact of nonadherence on graft failure. Only two studies measured adherence using electronic monitoring, which is currently thought to be the most accurate measure. Cross-sectional studies (n=15) tended to rely on self-report questionnaires, but these were poorly described; a median (interquartile range) of 22% (18%-26%) of recipients were nonadherent. Cohort studies (n=10) indicated that nonadherence contributes substantially to graft loss; a median (interquartile range) of 36% (14%-65%) of graft losses were associated with prior nonadherence. Meta-analysis of these studies showed that the odds of graft failure increased sevenfold (95% confidence interval, 4%-12%) in nonadherent subjects compared with adherent subjects. Standardized methods of assessing adherence in clinical populations need to be developed, and future studies should attempt to identify the level of adherence that increases the risk of graft failure. However, this review shows nonadherence to be common and to have a large impact on transplant survival. Therefore, significant improvements in graft survival could be expected from effective interventions to improve adherence.

Assessment of adherence should be a routine part of management of epilepsy. Further recognition and support should be given to patients who have poor seizure control since they are more likely to be more anxious and have unhelpful illness and treatment beliefs.

Nonadherence to immunosuppressants in renal transplant recipients is a major factor affecting graft survival, but it is difficult to detect accurately in clinical practice. Adherence was measured in 153 adult renal transplant recipients using self-report questionnaires and interview, clinician rating, and cyclosporine levels. The sensitivity and specificity of these measures were determined by comparison with electronic monitoring in a randomly selected subsample of 58 subjects. Measures of adherence in current clinical use do not perform well when tested against electronic monitoring. Self-report at a confidential interview was the best measure of adherence for the detection of both missed doses and erratic timing of medication. However, the use of a confidential interview is not directly applicable to a clinical setting. Further research on how best to facilitate disclosure in clinical settings may be the best way to develop adherence measures for use in routine practice.

Beliefs about medication are a promising target for interventions designed to improve adherence. The lower adherence in recipients of transplants from live donors needs confirming but may be clinically important in light of the drive to increase live donation.