4.3 Article

Diagnostic value of different adherence measures using electronic monitoring and virologic failure as reference standards

期刊

AIDS PATIENT CARE AND STDS
卷 22, 期 9, 页码 735-743

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT INC
DOI: 10.1089/apc.2007.0229

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Commission
  2. Bristol-Myers Squibb Belgium
  3. FWO-Vlaanderen [G.0266.04]
  4. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven [OT/04/43]
  5. DG Sanco [SPC2002334]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nonadherence to antiretroviral therapy is a substantial problem in HIV and jeopardizes the success of treatment. Accurate measurement of nonadherence is therefore imperative for good clinical management but no gold standard has been agreed on yet. In a single-center prospective study nonadherence was assessed by electronic monitoring: percentage of doses missed and drug holidays and by three self reports: (1) a visual analogue scale (VAS): percentage of overall doses taken; (2) the Swiss HIV Cohort Study Adherence Questionnaire (SHCS-AQ): percentage of overall doses missed and drug holidays and (3) the European HIV Treatment Questionnaire (EHTQ): percentage of doses missed and drug holidays for each antiretroviral drug separately. Virologic failure prospectively assessed during 1 year, and electronic monitoring were used as reference standards. Using virologic failure as reference standard, the best results were for (1) the SHCS-AQ after electronic monitoring (sensitivity, 87.5%; specificity, 78.6%); (2) electronic monitoring (sensitivity, 75%; specificity, 85.6%), and (3) the VAS combined with the SHCS-AQ before electronic monitoring (sensitivity, 87.5%,; specificity, 58.6%). The sensitivity of the complex EHTQ was less than 50%. Asking simple questions about doses taken or missed is more sensitive than complex questioning about each drug separately. Combining the VAS with the SHCS-AQ seems a feasible nonadherence measure for daily clinical practice. Self-reports perform better after electronic monitoring: their diagnostic value could be lower when given independently.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据