Assessment of adherence to disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis
- 33 Downloads
This work aimed to assess treatment adherence in rheumatoid arthritis patients with several tools and to identify factors associated with poor adherence.
Between February and December 2015, 183 patients were included in this cross-sectional study. A homemade 23-item self-questionnaire was filled by patients during an outpatient consultation or a day hospitalization stay. Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS)-4, MMAS-8 and Girerd scores were extracted from this homemade questionnaire. Medication possession ratio (MPR) was then calculated. For identification of factors associated with nonadherence, patients were divided in two groups according to MMAS-8 results differentiating patients with good or bad adherence to treatments.
Of the 183 patients, 59% received a combination of biologic and conventional synthetic disease-modifying drugs, 22% a biological treatment alone, and 19% a conventional DMARD alone. Respectively, 3%, 10%, and 7% were considered as low adherent according to MMAS-4, MMAS-8, and Girerd scores. MPR was calculated for 84/183 patients; 23% were low adherent. The need for a help in preparing the drugs (p = 0.05; OR = 6.12; 95% CI: 0.86 to 268.90) and concomitant diabetes (p < 0.001; OR = 0.045, 95% CI: 0.001 to 0.299) was higher in patients with good adherence. Presence of a patient’s relative reminding to take medications was associated with low adherence (p = 0.002; OR = 4.32, 95% CI: 1.41 to 13.11).
• Proportion of patients considered as low adherent ranged from 3 to 27% according to the method of evaluation.
• The use of a pillbox and/or the preparation of drugs by a patient’s relative was associated with good adherence.
• The presence of a patient’s relative reminding to take medication was associated with low adherence.
KeywordsAdherence Medication Questionnaire Rheumatoid arthritis
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
T.L. has received research grants and/or honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Aventis, and UCB. Other authors do not declare conflicts of interest.
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
- 12.Aletaha D, Neogi T, Silman AJ, Funovits J, Felson DT, Bingham CO 3rd, Birnbaum NS, Burmester GR, Bykerk VP, Cohen MD, Combe B, Costenbader KH, Dougados M, Emery P, Ferraccioli G, Hazes JM, Hobbs K, Huizinga TW, Kavanaugh A, Kay J, Kvien TK, Laing T, Mease P, Ménard HA, Moreland LW, Naden RL, Pincus T, Smolen JS, Stanislawska-Biernat E, Symmons D, Tak PP, Upchurch KS, Vencovský J, Wolfe F, Hawker G (2010) 2010 Rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria: an American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative. Arthritis Rheum 62:2569–2581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Tan X, Patel I, Chang J (2014) Review of the four item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-4) and eight item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8). Innov Pharm. https://doi.org/10.24926/iip.v5i3.347
- 25.Zink A, Listing J, Kary S, Ramlau P, Stoyanova-Scholz M, Babinsky K, von Hinueber U, Gromnica-Ihle E, Wassenberg S, Antoni C, Herzer P, Kekow J, Schneider M, Rau R (2005) Treatment continuation in patients receiving biological agents or conventional DMARD therapy. Ann Rheum Dis 64:1274–1279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Tijhuis GJ, Kooiman KG, Zwinderman AH, Hazes JM, Breedveld FC, Vliet Vlieland TP (2003) Validation of a novel satisfaction questionnaire for patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving outpatient clinical nurse specialist care, inpatient care, or day patient team care. Arthritis Rheum 49:193–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar