Is simplification of immunosuppressive medication a way to promote medication adherence of kidney transplant recipients? Findings from a randomized controlled trial

Effectiveness of eHealth for Medication Adherence in Renal Transplant Recipients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

As the optimal treatment for end-stage renal disease, kidney transplantation has proven instrumental in enhancing patient survival and quality of life. Suboptimal medication adherence is recognized as an independent risk factor for poor prognosis, graft rejection, and graft loss. In recent years, the advancement of IT has facilitated the integration of eHealth technologies into medical medication management, offering potential solutions to improve patient adherence. However, their efficacy in kidney transplant recipients remains inconclusive.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of eHealth interventions in improving medication adherence among kidney transplant recipients and identify potential influencing factors.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and Ovid databases for randomized controlled trials evaluating eHealth interventions targeting immunosuppressant medication adherence in kidney transplant recipients. The search time frame spanned from database inception to November 2024. Two investigators independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed outcomes. Primary outcomes included adherence measured by self-reported questionnaires, electronic monitoring devices, tacrolimus trough levels, intrapatient variability of tacrolimus concentrations, and the proportion of patients achieving a tacrolimus coefficient of variation <40%. Meta-analyses were performed for dichotomous data and continuous data, while narrative synthesis was applied to single studies or data unsuitable for meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses were conducted to determine whether results differed based on adherence assessment methods, follow-up duration, eHealth functionalities, delivery modes, and intervention designs. Risk of bias and evidence quality were evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies involving 1234 kidney transplant recipients were included. Significant between-group differences in adherence were observed only when assessed via electronic monitoring devices (risk ratio=1.46, P=.006; mean difference=0.37, P<.001). However, sensitivity analyses using the leave-one-out method demonstrated instability in these findings. Conflicting results or nonsignificant differences (P>.05) were identified across other outcome measures and subgroup analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

No definitive conclusions can be drawn regarding the efficacy of eHealth interventions in improving medication adherence among kidney transplant recipients, potentially due to heterogeneity in trial designs, intervention characteristics, user preferences, and variations in adherence definitions and measurement methodologies. These uncertainties are underscored by the low or very low quality of evidence, as assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. While eHealth holds promise, methodological refinements in study design and implementation remain critical. Future research should prioritize high-quality, large-scale evidence to validate its clinical efficacy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42025640638; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42025640638.

Non-adherence to immunosuppressive medications in kidney transplant recipients- a systematic scoping review

BACKGROUND

Rejection and graft failure remain common in kidney transplant recipients. Non-adherence to immunosuppressive medications is considered a major contributary factor to reduced long-term graft survival, particularly in younger people. Improvements in clinical practice based on adherence studies has been minimal.

METHODS

Joanna Briggs' Institute Methodology was used. MedlineALL, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection and Scopus databases were searched from January 2000 through to December 2023. Abstract and full text reviews were undertaken independently by two reviewers. Data was collated using a pre-designed extraction tool.

RESULTS

359 articles met the inclusion criteria. Non-adherence was commonly defined using self-reported questionnaires or pharmacy re-fill rates. Prevalence of non-adherence varied widely. There was little correlation between method of measurement and reported rates of non-adherence. Despite younger age being identified as a risk factor for non-adherence, pooled reported prevalence did not differ significantly in studies reporting prevalence in children, adolescents, or young adults vs. older adults (36.0 % vs. 34.0 %). Interventional studies to detect or improve adherence are highly heterogenous, often report small effects and are limited by the lack of gold-standard methods to measure adherence.

DISCUSSION

This scoping review outlines the complexities of non-adherence to immunosuppressive medications among kidney transplant recipients, highlighting significant variability in adherence definitions, measurements, and intervention efficacy. Reported non-adherence rates vary widely (2-89 %), underscoring the need for standardisation of the definition of non-adherence in research. Findings suggest that non-adherence to immunosuppressive medication is driven by a mix of demographic, psychosocial, and transplant-specific factors. Future research should prioritise standardised definitions of adherence, validated tools to measure adherence, and focus on clinically significant outcomes in non-adherent populations to develop meaningful, impactful interventions for long-term patient benefit.

Lowering maintenance immune suppression in elderly kidney transplant recipients; connecting the immunological and clinical dots

The management of long-term immune suppressive medication in kidney transplant recipients is a poorly explored field in the area of transplant medicine. In particular, older recipients are at an increased risk for side effects and have an exponentially increased risk of infection-related death. In contrast, an aged immune system decreases the risk of acute T-cell-mediated rejection in older recipients. Recent advances in alloimmunity research have shown a rapid and substantial decline in polyfunctional, high-risk CD4⁺ T cells post-transplantation. This lowers the direct alloreactivity responsible for T-cell-mediated rejection, also known as donor-specific hyporesponsiveness. Chronic antibody-mediated rejection (c-aABMR) is the most frequent cause of kidney graft loss in the long term. However, in older adults, c-aABMR as a cause of graft loss is outnumbered by death with a functioning graft. In addition, DSA development and a diagnosis of c-aABMR plateau ~10 years after transplantation, resulting in a very low risk for rejection thereafter. The intensity of immune suppression regimes could likely be reduced accordingly, but trials in this area are scarce. Tacrolimus monotherapy for 1 year after transplantation seems feasible in older kidney transplant recipients with standard immunological risk, showing the expected benefits of fewer infections and better vaccination responses.

Tacrolimus Monotherapy is Safe in Immunologically Low-Risk Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Randomized-Controlled Pilot Study

In this randomized-controlled pilot study, the feasibility and safety of tacrolimus monotherapy in immunologically low-risk kidney transplant recipients was evaluated [NTR4824, www.trialregister.nl]. Low immunological risk was defined as maximal 3 HLA mismatches and the absence of panel reactive antibodies. Six months after transplantation, recipients were randomized if eGFR >30 ml/min, proteinuria <50 mg protein/mmol creatinine, no biopsy-proven rejection after 3 months, and no lymphocyte depleting therapy given. Recipients were randomized to tacrolimus/mycophenolate mofetil (TAC/MMF) or to taper and discontinue MMF at month 9 (TACmono). 79 of the 121 recipients were randomized to either TACmono (n = 38) or TAC/MMF (n = 41). Mean recipient age was 59 years and 59% received a living donor transplant. The median follow-up was 62 months. After randomization, 3 TACmono and 4 TAC/MMF recipients experienced a biopsy-proven rejection. At 5 years follow-up, patient survival was 84% in TACmono versus 76% in TAC/MMF with death-censored graft survival of 97% for both groups and no differences in eGFR and proteinuria. Eleven TACmono recipients had an infectious episode versus 22 TAC/MMF recipients (p < 0.03). Donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies were not detected during follow-up in both groups. Tacrolimus monotherapy in selected immunologically low-risk kidney transplant recipients appears safe and reduces the number of infections.

Interventions for increasing immunosuppressant medication adherence in solid organ transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Non-adherence to immunosuppressant therapy is a significant concern following a solid organ transplant, given its association with graft failure. Adherence to immunosuppressant therapy is a modifiable patient behaviour, and different approaches to increasing adherence have emerged, including multi-component interventions. There has been limited exploration of the effectiveness of interventions to increase adherence to immunosuppressant therapy.

OBJECTIVES

This review aimed to look at the benefits and harms of using interventions for increasing adherence to immunosuppressant therapies in solid organ transplant recipients, including adults and children with a heart, lung, kidney, liver and pancreas transplant.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 14 October 2021 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register were identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster RCTs examining interventions to increase immunosuppressant adherence following a solid organ transplant (heart, lung, kidney, liver, pancreas) were included. There were no restrictions on language or publication type.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts of identified records, evaluated study quality and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool. The ABC taxonomy for measuring medication adherence provided the analysis framework, and the primary outcomes were immunosuppressant medication initiation, implementation (taking adherence, dosing adherence, timing adherence, drug holidays) and persistence. Secondary outcomes were surrogate markers of adherence, including self-reported adherence, trough concentration levels of immunosuppressant medication, acute graft rejection, graft loss, death, hospital readmission and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Meta-analysis was conducted where possible, and narrative synthesis was carried out for the remainder of the results.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty studies involving 3896 randomised participants (3718 adults and 178 adolescents) were included. Studies were heterogeneous in terms of the type of intervention and outcomes assessed. The majority of studies (80%) were conducted in kidney transplant recipients. Two studies examined paediatric solid organ transplant recipients. The risk of bias was generally high or unclear, leading to lower certainty in the results. Initiation of immunosuppression was not measured by the included studies. There is uncertain evidence of an association between immunosuppressant medication adherence interventions and the proportion of participants classified as adherent to taking immunosuppressant medication (4 studies, 445 participants: RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.20; I² = 78%). There was very marked heterogeneity in treatment effects between the four studies evaluating taking adherence, which may have been due to the different types of interventions used. There was evidence of increasing dosing adherence in the intervention group (8 studies, 713 participants: RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.26, I² = 61%).  There was very marked heterogeneity in treatment effects between the eight studies evaluating dosing adherence, which may have been due to the different types of interventions used. It was uncertain if an intervention to increase immunosuppressant adherence had an effect on timing adherence or drug holidays. There was limited evidence that an intervention to increase immunosuppressant adherence had an effect on persistence. There was limited evidence that an intervention to increase immunosuppressant adherence had an effect on secondary outcomes. For self-reported adherence, it is uncertain whether an intervention to increase adherence to immunosuppressant medication increases the proportion of participants classified as medically adherent to immunosuppressant therapy (9 studies, 755 participants: RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.49; I² = 74%; very low certainty evidence). Similarly, it is uncertain whether an intervention to increase adherence to immunosuppressant medication increases the mean adherence score on self-reported adherence measures (5 studies, 471 participants: SMD 0.65, 95% CI -0.31 to 1.60; I² = 96%; very low certainty evidence). For immunosuppressant trough concentration levels, it is uncertain whether an intervention to increase adherence to immunosuppressant medication increases the proportion of participants who reach target immunosuppressant trough concentration levels (4 studies, 348 participants: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.40; I² = 40%; very low certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether an intervention to increase adherence to immunosuppressant medication may reduce hospitalisations (5 studies, 460 participants: RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.02; I² = 64%; low certainty evidence). There were limited, low certainty effects on patient-reported health outcomes such as HRQoL. There was no clear evidence to determine the effect of interventions on secondary outcomes, including acute graft rejection, graft loss and death. No harms from intervention participation were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Interventions to increase taking and dosing adherence to immunosuppressant therapy may be effective; however, our findings suggest that current evidence in support of interventions to increase adherence to immunosuppressant therapy is overall of low methodological quality, attributable to small sample sizes, and heterogeneity identified for the types of interventions. Twenty-four studies are currently ongoing or awaiting assessment (3248 proposed participants); therefore, it is possible that findings may change with the inclusion of these large ongoing studies in future updates.