Open Access

Adherence to prescribed oral medication in adult patients undergoing chronic hemodialysis: A critical review of the literature

European Journal of Medical Research200914:185

DOI: 10.1186/2047-783X-14-5-185

Received: 18 November 2008

Accepted: 31 March 2009

Published: 14 June 2009

Abstract

Objective

Poor adherence to complex multimodal therapies is a widely recognized problem in the daily care of dialysis patients, contributing to excess morbidity and mortality of this population. While a few studies have been devoted to understanding patient nonadherence, their results were somewhat controversial. The goals of this review are to quantify nonadherence to certain oral medications, to raise awareness of factors that may cause problems in a patient's adherence to this treatment, and to describe strategies that may be used to improve adherence to prescribed pharmacotherapy.

Methods

A systematic literature review in the MEDLINE and PubMed database (1971-2008) was performed. Quantitative studies, which accurately indicated the total percentages of nonadherence to oral medication in adult patients receiving chronic hemodialysis, were identified.

Results

A total of 19 studies fulfilled the search criteria. Rates of nonadherence to the oral medication ranged from 3 - 80%. More than half of the included studies reported nonadherence rates of ≥ 50% (mean 67%). The use of phosphate binding therapy was the prevalent surveyed oral medication. Self reports, structured interviews, and predialysis serum phosphate levels were the most frequent assessment tools used to record adherence rates. Limitations of the reviewed studies included small patient cohorts, inconsistent definitions of adherence, and a lack of standardized methods for measuring nonadherence.

Conclusions

Nonadherence to oral medication in hemodialysis patients is still an underestimated, but life-threatening behaviour.

Keywords

Adherence compliance hemodialysis medication prescription

Introduction

The prevalence and incidence of chronic kidney disease stage V (end-stage renal disease) are continuously increasing, particularly in elderly patients [1]. End-stage renal disease (ESRD) is not simply a mono-organ failure, but rather a systemic disorder affecting a number of other organ systems. Despite significant advances in the technology of renal replacement therapy (RRT), no current modality of blood purification serves as a substitute for all renal functions. RRT undoubtedly contributes to long-term survival. However, morbidity and mortality of maintenance dialysis patients remain high: only about one third of the US hemodialysis (HD) patients are alive after 5 years [2]. Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death in ESRD patients [3]. Notably, patients with ESRD have a very high prevalence of cardiovascular disease risk factors such as diabetes and hypertension, but they are also exposed to other non-traditional, uremia-related cardiovascular disease risk factors, particularly derangements in calcium and phosphate metabolism [4]. Given the complexity of these cardiovascular risk factors in ESRD patients, it presents a challenging target for therapy. To modify these risk factors such as hypertension or secondary hyperparathyroidism, the HD patient has to take an average of 6-12 tablets per day [57].

Successful RRT of ESRD patients relies on patient adherence to various aspects of the therapy, such as attendance to the number of sessions prescribed to achieve the optimal dose of RRT, restriction of fluid intake, following dietary guidelines, and adherence to complex medical regimens [811]. There is solid evidence that adherence of ESRD patients correlates with morbidity and mortality [12]. Specifically, skipping treatment and poor dietary adherence are strongly associated with greater risk for death [13]. Unfortunately, poor adherence (compliance) with prescribed medication is a widely recognized problem in daily practice, but few studies have been devoted to understanding patient nonadherence to medication [14]. Furthermore, criteria to assess nonadherence to prescribed oral medications are often arbitrary and are not linked to defined clinical outcomes.

The goals of this literature review are: i) to quantify nonadherence to drugs preventing or treating secondary hyperparathyroidism, or to antihypertensive drugs, ii) to raise awareness of factors that may cause problems in patient adherence to these treatment programs, and iii) to describe strategies that may be used to improve adherence to prescribed medication.

Materials and methods

We conducted a systematic literature review in the online databases MEDLINE and PubMed (1971-2008) using a comprehensive list of relevant search terms (adherence/nonadherence, compliance/noncompliance, medication/drug, dialysis/hemodialysis, renal replacement therapy, end-stage renal disease/chronic renal failure) to identify studies on oral medication adherence among adult HD patients. We limited our review to those articles that accurately indicated total percentages or rates of nonadherence to oral medication in the HD population. The systematic literature research identified a total of 387 published articles that contained a combination of the search terms in the abstract. The vast majority (368) of these articles were qualitative studies, review articles, or case reports. Articles focusing on pediatric adherence (patients under 18 years of age) were excluded.

Results

Only 19 studies reported total rates of nonadherence to oral medication among adult HD patients. Key information is summarized in Table 1.
Table 1

Studies in a chronological order focusing on adherence to prescribed oral medication in adult HD patients

Study, year

Included patients

Medication type

% Non-adherent

Nonadherence definition/assessment

Results

Wenerowicz, 1978 [15]

19

PB

60

P > 4.5 mg/dl PSR (questionnaire)

Patients with internal locus of control1 orientation showed higher compliance than with external locus

Cummings, 1982 [51]

116

PB

70

P > 5.5 mg/dl PSR (interview)

Situational factors and psychosocial variables major contributors to adherence

Betts, 1988 [52]

46

PB

74

P > 5 mg/dl PSR (questionnaire)

Length of time on HD, age, educational level and response to illness not significantly related to adherence

Weed-Collins, 1989 [22]

30

PB

64

P > 5.5 mg/dl PSR (questionnaire)

Perceived barriers ("forgetting" and "being away from home") most significant predictors of compliance, women significantly more compliant

Blanchard, 1990 [53]

40

PB, CAS, Vits

28

PSR (questionnaire)

Majority of HD patients knew dosing schedules but knowledge about drug treatment was grossly deficient

Bame, 1993 [23]

1230

PB, AHT, CAS

50

P > 6.0 mg/dl

Prevalence of noncompliance consistent with previous studies; older age and higher income associated with compliance

Kaplan, 1994 [7]

30

PB, AHT

67

PSR (questionnaire) Reporting missing a dose

Drug selection and medication compliance contained greatest number of potential problems

Cleary, 1995 [18]

51

AHT, PB, CAS, Vits

61

P > 4.5 mg/dl (interview)

Patients with long-term HD more compliant with AHT and CAS than with PB

Lin, 1997 [54]

86

PB, CAS

24 - 61

P > 4.59 mg/dl, PSR, nurses' assessment

Multidimensional Health Locus of Control (MHLC) scale had only slight influence on measures of compliance

Curtin, 1997 [17]

135

AHT, PB

42 - 80

MEMS

Patients ≤ 65 yrs made more dosing errors with AHT and missed taking PB on more days than patients > 65 yrs

Leggat, 1998 [16]

6251

PB

22

P > 7.5 mg/dl

Younger patients and smokers with higher rates of noncompliance; blacks significantly less noncompliant than whites

Curtin, 1999 [6]

135

AHT, PB

73

PSR, pill count, MEMS

African-Americans with higher rates of noncompliance

Caraballo Nazario, 2001 [19]

53

AHT, PB, CAS

75

PSR, Reporting missing a dose (structured interview)

Significant association between compliance and educational level

Horne, 2001 [55]

47

AHT, PB, CAS

57

PSR, Reporting missing a dose (self report)

Nonadherence correlated with concerns about potential adverse effects of medication

Tomasello, 2004 [56]

129

PB

38-51

PSR (taking < 80% of medication), P > 5.5 mg/dl

Compliance did not account for the large difference in prescribed pill burden

Rahman, 2004 [57]

205

AHT

23

PSR, Reporting missing a dose

Good adherence to AHT therapy

Holley, 2006 [20]

39

AHT, PB

21

PSR, Reporting missing a dose (structured interview)

Inadequate prescription coverage, lack of transportation, and medication cost contribute to noncompliance

Lindberg, 2007 [58]

144

AHT, PB, CAS, Vits

80

Discrepancy between self-report and medication list

Deviation between consumption and prescription in chronic HD patients

Hirth, 2008 [21]

5478

AHT, PB, CAS

3 *-29 **

Reporting costrelated nonadherence (questionnaire)

Cost-related nonadherence varies across countries, substantial international variation

Abbreviations: PB Phosphate binder, AHT Antihypertensives, CAS Ca supplements including calcitriol, Vits Vitamins, MEMS medication event monitoring system, * Japan, ** USA; 1defined as a high expectation that one's actions have a causal relationship with the produced consequences

The selected articles showed a wide variation with regard to the sample size, varying from a minimum of 19 patients [15] to a maximum of 6251 patients [16]. Seven out of 19 studies (37%) included a total number of less than 50 patients.

Phosphate binders (PB, 18/19 studies), antihypertensive drugs (AHT, 11/19 studies), or oral calcium supplementation including the vitamin D analog calcitriol (CAS, 8/19 studies) were the prevalent surveyed oral medications.

Self reports or structured interviews (patient self reports, PSR, 16/19 studies, 84%) were the most frequently used tools to assess adherence rates. Predialysis serum phosphate (9/19 studies, 47%) was commonly used as an adherence indicator for patients taking the oral prescribed phosphate binding medication. Limit values for predialytic phosphate levels showed a broad amplitude from > 4.5 mg/dl [15] to > 7.5 mg/dl [16]. Only two studies by Curtin and coworkers [17, 6] used medication event monitoring devices (MEMS) to monitor patient's adherence.

Quantitative rates of nonadherence to oral medication substantially varied in the reviewed studies, and estimates of the percentage of nonadherent participants ranged from 3 - 80%. More than half of the included studies (11/19, 58%) reported nonadherence rates of ≥ 50% (mean 67%).

A history of long-term HD [18], older age (> 65 years) [17], higher educational level [19], lower medication costs [20, 21], as well as little concerns about potential adverse effects were identified as markers for adherence. Among psychosocial variables an internal locus of control orientation (defined as a high expectation that one's actions have a causal relationship with the produced consequences) [15] and perceived barriers were most significantly associated with good adherence [22].

Discussion

To determine the frequency and prevalence of nonadherence in patients with ESRD undergoing HD, a clear-cut and consistent definition of these terms is essentially needed.

Owing to the inconsistencies in uniform definitions, widely divergent results have been obtained in different studies, so that as many as 80% of HD patients may be considered noncompliant with oral medication [23, 24, 8, 18]. The data of the selected 19 studies revealed that the calculated median is closer to 50% [25].

Standardized adherence parameters that can be easily measured and verified would be desirable to achieve reproducible and accurate rates of nonadherence. Nonadherence rates to oral medication are most frequently assessed by predialytic serum phosphate levels. However, serum phosphate level is not only influenced by the phosphate binder therapy itself, but also by diet restrictions, dialysis attendance and residual renal function, revealing the lack of specificity particularly in regard to comorbid illness and the patient's nutritional status. This could be a possible explanation for the weak correlations between adherence rates estimated by self reports and phosphate measurements.

To date, there is little consensus among researchers about standardized methods for measuring nonadherence. Assessment tools for evaluation of adherence in the HD population include direct and indirect monitoring methods (summarized in Table 2).
Table 2

Standard assessment tools for evaluation of adherence in the HD population

Direct monitoring methods

Indirect monitoring methods

assays of drug concentrations in biological fluids

patient self-reports (structured interviews, questionnaire)

use of markers incorporated into pills

compliance ratings by nurses

direct observation of pill taking

prescription refills

pill counts

microelectronic monitoring devices (MEMS)

Microelectronic monitoring devices (MEMS) [26] are recently introduced microchips incorporated into drug container caps and offer a reliable and objective source of adherence data [27, 28]. MEMS are expensive, but monitoring 1 or 2 medications, chosen as "sentinel" drugs, is usually sufficient to determine adherence [26, 29]. Marked differences in rates of nonadherence as measured by the MEMS versus self reports were observed: MEMS recorded 52% of the HD patients as repeatedly nonadherent for antihypertensive medication and 70% as repeatedly noncompliant for phosphate binder medication, whereas evaluation of self reports only identified 12% and 8%, respectively [17, 6].

Factors associated with nonadherence in HD patients, mainly based on expert opinion, are similar to those for other chronic conditions and can be subdivided into demographic, clinical and psychosocial predictors (summarized in Table 3) [30].
Table 3

Factors associated with nonadherence in HD patients

Demographic factors

age

sex/gender

educational level

marital status/living arrangements

race/ethnicity

income/employment status

cost/payment/insurance/socioeconomic situation

smoking/drinking/drug abuse

religion/religiosity

Clinical factors

length of time on hemodialysis

chronicity/chronic conditions

diabetic status

former transplant history

treatment regimen complexity/high tablet burden

tablet size and taste

treatment side effects

Psychosocial factors

health beliefs/knowledge/motivation

self-esteem

cognitive behaviour/function

health locus of control1

social support and family dynamics

psychiatric illness anxiety/depression

coping style

patient-physician relationship

1defined as a high expectation that one's actions have a causal relationship with the produced consequences.

These factors are mainly based on expert opinion.

Among the most frequently assessed demographic predictors of oral medication adherence, age seems to be a strong predictor of nonadherence in patients with ESRD undergoing HD in most, albeit not all studies. Some articles reported that older age, particularly > 65 years, was associated with higher levels of adherence [31, 32, 24, 33, 23, 34]. This is in contrast to recent observations, reporting an emerging cognitive impairment and dementia in the aging dialysis population [35, 36].

The complexity of the prescribed medication regimen is another crucial predictor of nonadherence, as prescribed number of doses seems to be inversely related to adherence [26]. Unfortunately, once-daily dosing as latterly introduced in the therapy for HIV-infected patients as well as for transplant recipients is unrealistic for the multimorbid adult HD patient [37, 38].

In addition to treatment complexity and high pill burden, also the size and taste of phosphate binding tablets may impact adherence to prescribed oral medication [39]. Novel compounds prescribed for phosphate binding in ESRD patients could circumvent high pill burden in the future. If the calcium- and aluminium-free lanthanum carbonate could provide effective phosphate control with a lower tablet burden has to be elucidated [40].

HD patients are commonly affected by secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT), in which 3 well-known factors are usually involved: hypocalcemia, hyperphosphatemia, and calcitriol deficiency. Anecdotal reports showed that HD patients who receive any injectable vitamin D formulation have a survival advantage over comparable patients who receive no injectable vitamin D [41]. The intravenous administration of vitamin D or vitamin D analogs should further improve adherence in therapy for SHPT in HD patients. Several new vitamin D analogs, e.g. paricalcitol (19-nor-1,25(OH) 2D2), have been developed and investigated with the rationale to treat SHPT with a reduced risk of hypercalcemia and hyperphosphatemia [42].

Psychosocial variables, such as the extent of depression [43] and social support or family dynamics [44], are frequently related to outcome in ESRD patients treated with HD [45]. Particularly in regard to prescribed oral medication, an internal locus of control orientation [15] and perceived barriers (especially forgetting and being away from home) were significant predictors of compliance [22].

Patient motivation, empathy and trust are essential key factors to optimize patient adherence. As stated in "The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure" [46], the "most effective therapy prescribed by the most careful clinician will control the disease only if the patients are motivated". In the development of empathy, attending physicians and the nephrology nursing staff play a pivotal role. Particularly, nephrology nurses are ideally placed to establish a partnership with the chronic HD patient [11]. The HD patient requires consistent and repeated education about their disease, treatment, and risks and benefits of adherence [47]. Interventional studies evaluating possible strategies to improve prescribed oral medication adherence are so far lacking in the dialysis population [48]. However, a single structured drug education program for HD patients yielded significant increases in medication knowledge and adherence within a control group [49]. To minimize nonadherence, interventions need to focus on both patient factors and the extent to which relationships and system problems compromise the patient's ability to adhere to medication treatment [50].

Taken together, a wide spectrum of useful strategies to improve medication adherence have been proposed, but most of them were not proved by interventional studies (summarized in Table 4). A patient-centered approach, including the removal of barriers to adherence, with improved communication, simplification of medication regimen, ongoing education, and the use of MEMS have been recommended as strategies to improve medication adherence. However, up to now, no single strategy has been definitely proven to yield universal and/or long lasting improvements in adherence.
Table 4

Strategies to improve HD patient's adherence to oral medication

Improvement of interaction with the attending physicians and the nursing staff

Maintenance of contact with the patient and the patient's family (empathy on adherence, trust)

Continuous education of the patient about the disease and its treatment

Establishment of the goals of therapy

Improvement of patient motivation

Awareness of medication-taking behaviour

Reduced complexity of treatment regimens (once-a-day formulations)

Early diagnosis of cognitive impairment

While interventional studies are lacking in the HD population, the proposed strategies are predominantly based on expert opinion.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
KFH Nierenzentrum Muenchen Laim
(2)
Department of Nephrology, Medical Clinic I, University Hospital Munich-Grosshadern

References

  1. Hallan SI, Vikse BE: Relationship between chronic kidney disease prevalence and end-stage renal disease risk. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 2008,17(3):286–291. 10.1097/MNH.0b013e3282f8b177PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. United States Renal Data System: Excerpts from USRDS 2007 Annual Data Report. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Am J Kidney Dis 2008,1(Suppl 1):S1.Google Scholar
  3. Cheung AK, Sarnak MJ, Yan G, Berkoben M, Heyka R, Kaufman A, Lewis J, Rocco M, Toto R, Windus D, Ornt D, Levey AS: Cardiac diseases in maintenance hemodialysis patients: results of the HEMO Study. Kidney Int 2004,65(6):2380–2389. 10.1111/j.1523-1755.2004.00657.xPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Parfrey PS, Foley RN: The clinical epidemiology of cardiac disease in chronic renal failure. J Am Soc Nephrol 1999,10(7):1606–1615.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Manley HJ, Garvin CG, Drayer DK, Reid GM, Bender WL, Neufeld TK, Hebbar S, Muther RS: Medication prescribing patterns in ambulatory haemodialysis patients: comparisons of USRDS to a large not-for-profit dialysis provider. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2004,19(7):1842–1848. 10.1093/ndt/gfh280PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Curtin RB, Svarstad BL, Keller TH: Hemodialysis patients' noncompliance with oral medications. ANNA J 1999,26(3):307–316.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Kaplan B, Mason NA, Shimp LA, Ascione FJ: Chronic hemodialysis patients. Part I: Characterization and drug-related problems. Ann Pharmacother 1994,28(3):316–319.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Safdar N, Baakza H, Kumar H, Naqvi SA: Non-compliance to diet and fluid restrictions in haemodialysis patients. J Pak Med Assoc 1995,45(11):293–295.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Christensen AJ, Moran PJ, Wiebe JS, Ehlers SL, Lawton WJ: Effect of a behavioral self-regulation intervention on patient adherence in hemodialysis. Health Psychol 2002,21(4):393–397.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Morales López C, Burrowes JD, Gizis F, Brommage D: Dietary adherence in Hispanic patients receiving hemodialysis. J Ren Nutr 2007,17(2):138–147. 10.1053/j.jrn.2006.12.004PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Barnett T, Li Yoong T, Pinikahana J, Si-Yen T: Fluid compliance among patients having haemodialysis: can an educational programme make a difference? J Adv Nurs 2008,61(3):300–306. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04528.xPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. ME O'Brien: Compliance behavior and long-term maintenance dialysis. Am J Kid Dis 1990,15(3):209–214.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Unruh ML, Evans IV, Fink NE, Powe NR, Meyer KB: Choices for Healthy Outcomes in Caring for End-Stage Renal Disease (CHOICE) Study. Skipped treatments, markers of nutritional nonadherence, and survival among incident hemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis 2005,46(6):1107–1116. 10.1053/j.ajkd.2005.09.002PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Constantini L: Compliance, adherence, and self-management: Is a paradigm shift possible for chronic kidney disease clients? CANNT J 2006,16(4):22–26.Google Scholar
  15. Wenerowicz WJ, Riskind JH, Jenkins PG: Locus of control and degree of compliance in hemodialysis patients. J Dial 1978,2(5–6):495–505.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Leggat JE Jr, Orzol SM, Hulbert-Shearon TE, Golper TA, Jones CA, Held PJ, Port FK: Noncompliance in hemodialysis: predictors and survival analysis. Am J Kidney Dis 1998,32(1):139–145. 10.1053/ajkd.1998.v32.pm9669435PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Curtin RB, Svarstad BL, Andress D, Keller T, Sacksteder P: Differences in older versus younger hemodialysis patients' noncompliance with oral medications. Geriatr Nephrol Urol 1997,7(1):35–44. 10.1023/A:1008267104024PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Cleary DJ, Matzke GR, Alexander AC, Joy MS: Medication knowledge and compliance among patients receiving long-term dialysis. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1995,52(17):1895–1900.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Caraballo Nazario GL, Lebrón de avilés C, Dávila Torres RR, Burgos Calderón R: Kidney patients: aspects related to compliance with renal treatment. P R Health Sci J 2001,20(4):383–393.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Holley JL, DeVore CC: Why all prescribed medications are not taken: results from a survey of chronic dialysis patients. Adv Perit Dial 2006, 22: 162–166.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Hirth RA, Greer SL, Albert JM, Young EW, Piette JD: Out-of-pocket spending and medication adherence among dialysis patients in twelve countries. Health Aff (Millwood) 2008,27(1):89–102. 10.1377/hlthaff.27.1.89View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Weed-Collins M, Hogan R: Knowledge and health beliefs regarding phosphate-binding medication in predicting compliance. ANNA J 1989,16(4):278–282.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Bame SI, Petersen N, Wray NP: Variation in hemodialysis patient compliance according to demographic characteristics. Soc Sci Med 1993,37(8):1035–1043. 10.1016/0277-9536(93)90438-APubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Blackburn SL: Dietary compliance of chronic hemodialysis patients. J Am Diet Assoc 1977,70(1):31–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Loghman-Adham M: Medication noncompliance in patients with chronic disease: issues in dialysis and renal transplantation. Am J Mang Care 2003,9(2):155–171.Google Scholar
  26. Claxton AJ, Cramer J, Pierce C: A systematic review of the associations between dose regimens and medication compliance. Clin Ther 2001,23(8):1296–1310. 10.1016/S0149-2918(01)80109-0PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Elixhauser A, Eisen SA, Romeis JC, Homan SM: The effects of monitoring and feedback on compliance. Med Care 1990,28(10):882–893. 10.1097/00005650-199010000-00003PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Stephenson BJ, Rowe BH, Haynes RB, Macharia WM, Leon G: The rational clinical examination. Is this patient taking the treatment as prescribed? JAMA 1993,269(21):2779–2781. 10.1001/jama.1993.03500210079036PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Pruijm MT, Teta D, Wuerzner G, Santschi V, Burnier M: Treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism in dialysis: Report of a case-study of treatment failure. Nephrol Ther 2008,4(1):28–33. 10.1016/j.nephro.2007.10.001PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Rosner F: Patient noncompliance: causes and solutions. Mt Sinai J Med 2006,73(2):553–559.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Gonsalves-Ebrahim L, Sterin G, Gulledge AD, Gipson WT, Rodgers DA: Noncompliance in younger adults on hemodialysis. Psychosomatics 1987,28(1):34–41. 10.1016/S0033-3182(87)72577-8PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Sherman RA, Cody RP, Matera JJ, Rogers ME, Solanchick JC: Deficiencies in delivered hemodialysis therapy due to missed and shortened treatments. Am J Kidney Dis 1994,24(6):921–923.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Avram MR, Pena C, Burrell D, Antignani A, Avram MM: Hemodialysis and the elderly patient: potential advantages as to quality of life, urea generation, serum creatinine, and less interdialytic weight gain. Am J Kidney Dis 1990,16(4):342–345.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Berman E, Merz JF, Rudnick M, Snyder RW, Rogers KK, Lee J, Johnson D, Mosenkis A, Israni A, Wolpe PR, Lipschutz JH: Religiosity in a hemodialysis population and its relationship to satisfaction with medical care, satisfaction with life, and adherence. Am J Kidney Dis 2004,44(3):488–497.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Murray AM: Cognitive impairment in the aging dialysis and chronic kidney disease populations: an occult burden. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis 2008,15(2):123–132. 10.1053/j.ackd.2008.01.010PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Hain DJ: Cognitive function and adherence of older adults undergoing hemodialysis. Nephrol Nurs J 2008,35(1):23–29.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Negredo E, Bonjoch A, Clotet B: Benefits and concerns of simplification strategies in HIV-infected patients. J Antimicrob Chemother 2006,58(2):235–242. 10.1093/jac/dkl191PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Florman S, Alloway R, Kalayoglu M, Punch J, Bak T, Melancon J, Klintmalm G, Busque S, Charlton M, Lake J, Dhadda S, Wisemandle K, Wirth M, Fitzsimmons W, Holman J, First MR: Once-daily tacrolimus extended release formulation: experience at 2 years postconversion from a Prograf-based regimen in stable liver transplant recipients. Transplantation 2007,83(12):1639–1642. 10.1097/01.tp.0000265445.09987.f1PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Kaplan MR, Stashenko CL, Bledsoe AL, McGowan J: A preference study: calcium acetate tablets versus gelcaps in hemodialysis patients. Nephrol Nurs J 2002,29(4):363–365.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Hutchison AJ, Laville M: on behalf of the SPD405–313 Lanthanum Study Group. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2008,23(11):3677–3684. 10.1093/ndt/gfn310PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Wolf M, Thadhani R: Vitamin D in patients with renal failure: a summary of observational mortality studies and steps moving forward. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 2007,103(3–5):487–490. 10.1016/j.jsbmb.2006.11.009PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Andress D: Nonclassical aspects of differential vitamin D receptor activation: implications for survival in patients with chronic kidney disease. Drugs 2007,67(14):1999–2012. 10.2165/00003495-200767140-00003PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Kimmel PL, Weihs K, Peterson RA: Survival in hemodialysis patients: the role of depression. J Am Soc Nephrol 1993,4(1):12–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Christensen AJ, Wiebe JS, Smith TW, Turner CW: Predictors of survival among hemodialysis patients: effect of perceived family support. Health Psychol 1994,13(6):521–525.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Wai L, Richmond J, Burton H, Lindsay RM: Influence of psychosocial factors on survival of home-dialysis patients. Lancet 1981,2(8256):1155–1156.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 7) Hypertension 2003, 42: 1206. 10.1161/01.HYP.0000107251.49515.c2Google Scholar
  47. Newmann JM, Litchfield WE, Newmann JM: Adequacy of dialysis: the patient's role and patient concerns. Semin Nephrol 2005,25(2):112–119. 10.1016/j.semnephrol.2004.09.018PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Haynes RB, Ackloo E, Sahota N, McDonald HP, Yao X: Interventions for enhancing medication adherence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008., (2):Google Scholar
  49. So HS, Kim AY, Kim EA, Kim SM: Effects of a structured drug education program on knowledge and medication compliance for hemodialysis patients. Taehan Kanho Hakhoe Chi 2006,36(7):1135–1144.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Kammerer J, Garry G, Hartigan M, Carter B, Erlich L: Adherence in patients on dialysis: strategies for success. Nephrol Nurs J 2007,34(5):479–486.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Cummings KM, Becker MH, Kirscht JP, Levin NW: Psychosocial factors affecting adherence to medical regiments in a group of hemodialysis patients. Med Care 1982,20(6):567–580. 10.1097/00005650-198206000-00003PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Betts DK, Crotty GD: Response to illness and compliance of long-term hemodialysis patients. ANNA J 1988,15(2):96–100.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Blanchard R, Berger W, Bailie GR, Eisele G: Knowledge of hemodialysis and CAPD patients about their prescribed medicines. Clin Nephrol 1990,34(4):173–178.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Lin CC, Liang CC: The relationship between health locus of control and compliance of hemodialysis patients. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 1997,13(4):243–254.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Horne R, Sumner S, Jubraj B, Weinman J, Frost S: Haemodialysis patients beliefs about treatment: Implications for adherence to medication and fluid-diet restrictions. Int Journal Pharmacy Prac 2001,9(3):169–175. 10.1111/j.2042-7174.2001.tb01045.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Tomasello S, Dhupar S, Sherman RA: Phosphate binders, K/DOQI guidelines, and compliance: The unfortunate reality. Dialysis & Transplantation 2004,33(5):236–242.Google Scholar
  57. Rahman M, Griffin V: Patterns of antihypertensive medication use in hemodialysis patients. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2004,61(14):1473–1478.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Lindberg M, Lindberg P, Wikström B: Medication discrepancy: a concordance problem between dialysis patients and caregivers. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2007,41(6):546–552. 10.1080/00365590701421363PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© I. Holzapfel Publishers 2009

Advertisement