AB1165 MEDICATION ADHERENCE DATA IN A RANDOMIZED TRIAL: LARGE CHALLENGES TO COME FROM RAW DATA TO A WORKABLE AND RELIABLE DATASET

Background:

Medication adherence in the GLORIA trial, among elderly patients with rheumatoid arthritis, is measured with caps that register openings of the medication bottle. At each study visit, one or two medication bottles with cap (kits) are dispensed, each containing 90 capsules. Multiple steps are needed to come to a workable dataset to describe adherence.

Objectives:

To describe the steps that are needed to come from raw data to a workable dataset to analyze adherence data that are recorded by electronic caps.

Methods:

The medication bottle contains a cap with the ability to register cap openings. The raw dataset from the caps consist of an excel file with one opening event per row, recorded as date and time. One cap yields approximately 90 rows. First, the kit numbers were matched to the corresponding patient numbers, that are recorded in another excel file. Instances where two kits were dispensed were recorded with two kit numbers in one cell and need to be copied to two cells with one kit number. Second, the VLOOKUP function was used to combine dates and kit numbers. One row now contains all openings from one kit. Then, the number of days between first opening and each next opening date was calculated. A range of 90 days was made to calculate how many times the bottle was opened on each day of the 90-days period. The results were color-coded to visualize instances of zero, one or ≥two openings on a day.

Results:

The colored calendar matrix (Figure 1) can now be used to categorize adherence patterns.

Conclusion:

A monitoring cap seems a simple instrument to measure adherence. However, multiple steps and a lot of time are needed to come to a workable dataset for the study of adherence patterns.

Acknowledgments:

The GLORIA project is funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the topic ‟Personalizing Health and Care’’, grant agreement No 634886.

Disclosure of Interests:

Linda Hartman: None declared, Elisa Alessandri: None declared, Reinhard Bos: None declared, Daniela Opris-Belinski Speakers bureau: as declared, Marc R Kok Grant/research support from: BMS and Novartis, Consultant of: Novartis and Galapagos, Hanneke Griep-Wentink: None declared, Ruth Klaasen: None declared, Cornelia Allaart: None declared, George Bruyn: None declared, Hennie Raterman Grant/research support from: UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Sqibb, Cellgene and Sanofi Genzyme, Marieke Voshaar Grant/research support from: part of phd research, Speakers bureau: conducting a workshop (Pfizer), Nuno Gomes: None declared, Rui Pinto: None declared, Thomas Klausch: None declared, WIllem Lems Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Consultant of: Lilly, Pfizer, Maarten Boers: None declared

FRI0581 IN ELDERLY PATIENTS, CAPS THAT RECORD MEDICATION BOTTLE OPENINGS ARE UNRELIABLE AND THUS NOT THE GOLD STANDARD FOR ADHERENCE

Background:

Adherence is a serious problem in treatment of inflammatory diseases. To measure adherence, caps that record medication bottle openings may be superior to capsule counts (1). In the ongoing two-year GLORIA trial on the addition of low-dose (5 mg) prednisolone or placebo to standard of care in elderly patients (65+ years) with rheumatoid arthritis, adherence was measured in both ways during the whole trial.

Objectives:

To describe adherence patterns, and to compare adherence as assessed with adherence caps and with capsule counts in the GLORIA trial.

Methods:

The recorded adherence patterns of patients (blinded for treatment group) were classified according to descriptive categories. Overall adherence according to number of bottle openings was compared with adherence according to the capsule count. Good adherence was defined as 80%: i.e. for caps 80% of days one opening recorded, and for counts less than 20% of prescribed tablets returned at the subsequent visit. Each patient has a maximum of 8 periods of 90 days.

Results:

Trial inclusion has closed in 2018 at 452 patients; the current dataset contains adherence data of 385 patients. Mean number of recorded 90-day periods per patient was 4 (range 1-8). Based on capsule counts over all periods, 90% of the patients met the 80% threshold of adherence; based on cap data only 31% met this criterion.

The four adherence patterns are shown in a calendar matrix, with yellow for zero, green for one and blue for ≥two openings on a day (Figure 1). Bottles were supposed to be opened once a day.

Patients were categorized according to the opening pattern seen in at least 50% of assessed periods:

32% non-use(<20% of the days an opening);26% stable use(≥80% of the days 1 opening);40% irregular use(different adherence patterns, in or between periods);2% weekly use(1 opening per week).

Conclusion:

In our trial of elderly rheumatoid arthritis patients, patients appeared to be mostly adherent according to conventional capsule counts. Results from adherence caps were highly discrepant with the capsule counts, with patterns suggesting patients did not use the bottle for daily dispensing, despite specific advice to do so.

References:

[1] El Alili M, Vrijens B, Demonceau J, Evers SM, Hiligsmann M. A scoping review of studies comparing the medication event monitoring system (MEMS) with alternative methods for measuring medication adherence. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2016;82:268-79.

Acknowledgments:

The GLORIA project is funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the topic ‘’Personalizing Health and Care’’, grant agreement No 634886.

Disclosure of Interests:

Linda Hartman: None declared, Sabrina Paolino: None declared, Reinhard Bos: None declared, Daniela Opris-Belinski Speakers bureau: as declared, Marc R Kok Grant/research support from: BMS and Novartis, Consultant of: Novartis and Galapagos, Hanneke Griep-Wentink: None declared, Ruth Klaasen: None declared, Cornelia Allaart: None declared, George Bruyn: None declared, Hennie Raterman Grant/research support from: UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Sqibb, Cellgene and Sanofi Genzyme, Marieke Voshaar Grant/research support from: part of phd research, Speakers bureau: conducting a workshop (Pfizer), Nuno Gomes: None declared, Rui Pinto: None declared, Thomas Klausch: None declared, WIllem Lems Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Consultant of: Lilly, Pfizer, Maarten Boers: None declared

Suboptimal cardiovascular risk management in rheumatoid arthritis patients despite an explicit cardiovascular risk screening programme

Objective: In 2011, we started to offer cardiovascular (CV) risk screening to rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with a high CV risk. After 1 year, we assessed whether patients labelled as high CV risk had started preventive treatment when indicated, and whether the CV risk score had changed. Methods: CV risk screening was performed in both a large outpatient rheumatology clinic and a general hospital in the Netherlands, and the general practitioner or the internist was informed about the results of the CV screening, including specific advice on the initiation or adjustment of cardiopreventive drugs. National guidelines were used to assess how many patients were eligible for preventive treatment. After 1 year, CV risk, lifestyle, and treatment were re-evaluated. Patients with a history of CV disease at baseline or who experienced a CV event during follow-up were excluded from the analyses. Results: A high 10 year CV risk (> 20%) was present in 58%, and 55% had an indication for anti-hypertensives, statins, or both. At follow-up, cardiopreventive drug treatment had been started or adjusted in only one-third of patients with an indication for treatment. After screening, 42% of patients reported having changed their lifestyle, through more exercise (24%), diet adaption (20%), and weight loss (11%). Conclusion: Despite clear guidelines to improve CV risk, the results of a programme comprising active screening, targeted advice, and referral to the general practitioner or internist prove that primary prevention remains a major challenge in high-risk RA patients.