ライフサイエンスコーパス: nonadherence

1 improved survival in the absence of reported nonadherence.

2 Interface fluid metrics, graft nonadherence.

3 scriptions were associated with less primary nonadherence.

4 and may be associated with a higher rate of nonadherence.

5 excess risk of stroke death associated with nonadherence.

6 o medications for chronic conditions with HT nonadherence.

7 cially low income) is associated with statin nonadherence.

8 increased comorbidities were associated with nonadherence.

9 between prior medication nonadherence and HT nonadherence.

10 ween humoral immunity, cellular immunity and nonadherence.

11 electronic prescription status with primary nonadherence.

12 ne of the variables measured were related to nonadherence.

13 r patient characteristics' associations with nonadherence.

14 5% CI, 1.1-12.3) was associated with primary nonadherence.

15 iated with a higher likelihood of medication nonadherence.

16 we need more information on risk factors for nonadherence.

17 are (4 of 111; 3.6%) and was associated with nonadherence.

18 rimary outcomes were TKI discontinuation and nonadherence.

19 but many reported antiretroviral medication nonadherence.

20 iation between life chaos and CVD-medication nonadherence.

21 screenings could identify those at risk for nonadherence.

22 techniques may have the potential to reduce nonadherence.

23 life chaos is associated with CVD-medication nonadherence.

24 [1.02-1.12]) in odds of reporting medication nonadherence.

25 quartile increased, patients exhibited more nonadherence.

26 were most closely associated with treatment nonadherence.

27 t their transplant and medication beliefs in nonadherence.

28 ciated with financial hardship and treatment nonadherence.

29 identified other risk factors for long-term nonadherence.

30 reatment outcomes, suggesting forgiveness to nonadherence.

31 to pre-ART DRMs vs >90% attributable to ART nonadherence.

32 d other potential risk factors for long-term nonadherence.

33 ors, and patient factors are associated with nonadherence.

34 buting to nonadherence is useful in managing nonadherence.

35 ods (>=0.1 kU/L) were not related to overall nonadherence.

36 actionable factors, contribute to medication nonadherence.

37 ge range persists in the absence of reported nonadherence.

38 81 [95% CI, 1.47-5.36]) were associated with nonadherence.

39 tor scale, which assesses beliefs related to nonadherence.

40 ipients persisted in the absence of reported nonadherence.

41 e associated with increased rates of primary nonadherence.

42 ctronic prescribing affects rates of primary nonadherence.

43 re further from the null when correcting for nonadherence: 1) among the strata with an estimated 100%

44 linical community could substantially reduce nonadherence: 1) identifying monitoring methods; 2) impr

45 cluded beta-blocker intolerance (15; 32%) or nonadherence (10; 21%) and disease factors (18; 38%; cat

46 Using an adherence rate <90% to define nonadherence, 20.5% of the participants were nonadherers

47 ary language had the highest rate of primary nonadherence (33.9%) compared with Spanish (29%) or othe

48 found to have a significantly higher rate of nonadherence (49.4% vs 14.1% and 29.3% vs 9.8%).

49 ug holidays) and to identify contributors to nonadherence 6 months after enrollment.

50 Medication nonadherence, a major problem in cardiovascular disease

51 rporating both intentional and unintentional nonadherence, a measure "actual adherence" was calculate

52 when there were nonnull treatment effect and nonadherence after treatment initiation.

53 Nonadherence also increased in this group (antihypertens

54 Nonadherence also increased to the contraindications sev

55 ating peak hazards of mortality and reported nonadherence among 567 patients transplanted between age

56 d with overall and rapidly increasing statin nonadherence among men.

57 egression was used to estimate predictors of nonadherence and account for patient and physician clust

58 th the strongest risk factors including past nonadherence and being an adolescent or young adult.

59 privation (economically motivated treatment nonadherence and broader hardships related to medical ex

60 ed with iOCT are associated with early graft nonadherence and can be quantified with an automated alg

61 Recurrence determinants (ie, nonadherence and demographics) may be as important as sp

62 chemical monitoring are useful for detecting nonadherence and for improving adherence.

63 y significant association between medication nonadherence and glaucomatous vision loss.

64 ine the association between prior medication nonadherence and HT nonadherence.

65 Studies that reported factors for nonadherence and nonpersistence to anti-VEGF therapy as

66 Systematic review of risk factors for nonadherence and nonpersistence to intravitreal anti-vas

67 Definitions of nonadherence and nonpersistence varied or were not repor

68 Multiple factors determine nonadherence and nonpersistence, including at the condit

69 r clozapine discontinuation is confounded by nonadherence and other unobserved factors and to what ex

70 performed on the barriers that contribute to nonadherence and paired t tests were conducted for the p

71 hout adequate knowledge, SOTR are at risk of nonadherence and poor transplant outcomes.

72 graft losses were caused at least in part by nonadherence and premature termination of treatment.

73 antipsychotics are used to reduce medication nonadherence and relapse in schizophrenia-spectrum disor

74 s of readmissions were changes in medication/nonadherence and supraventricular arrhythmia.

75 The change in cost-related nonadherence and the change in cost-reduction strategies

76 dy outcomes were the overall rate of primary nonadherence and the rate for each treatment-number subg

77 Antihypertensive medication nonadherence and the white coat effect, defined as eleva

78 f these low-cost interventions on medication nonadherence and to identify their most useful component

79 While no differences were found in terms of nonadherence and use problems between the current and th

80 There was considerable nonadherence and withdrawal, limiting the ability to dra

81 ported good treatment adherence, 72.0% minor nonadherence, and 7.1% were nonadherent.

82 odes of ABMR occurred, all in the context of nonadherence, and all associated with in vitro anti-HLA

83 cial distress, food insecurity, cost-related nonadherence, and foregone/delayed medical care, reachin

84 e occurs, identify patients prone to primary nonadherence, and simplify medication regimens to maximi

85 95% CI, 1.16-1.40]), cost-related medication nonadherence (aOR, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.30-1.57]), and forego

86 ation during pregnancy in this setting, with nonadherence appearing to drive most episodes of elevate

87 esistance (ADR) and that very high levels of nonadherence are needed for therapy failure.

88 sity statin plus ezetimibe therapy, rates of nonadherence are reported in up to 40% of subjects.

89 Despite this, data on nonadherence are scarce and quantified only on the day o

90 fter 5 days (P = 0.02) and a Fe(NO) test for nonadherence (area under the curve = 0.86; 95% confidenc

91 npatient directly observed therapy confirmed nonadherence as the major cause of virologic failure for

92 elevated anxiety, less time rehospitalized, nonadherence at the final randomized controlled trial as

93 regarding the prevalence and consequence of nonadherence, barriers to adherence and new intervention

94 DOICS (budesonide 1,600 mug) and a test for nonadherence based on changes in Fe(NO) was developed.

95 egimens are widely assumed to forgive modest nonadherence, because virological suppression in plasma

96 Our aim was to compare contraindication nonadherence before and after the guideline update.

97 decline in the rate of several cost-related nonadherence behaviors, patients reporting failure to fi

98 ssociated with higher life chaos: medication nonadherence (beta=1.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0

99 In the 2 studies that compared nonadherence between a phobia group and a nonphobia grou

100 1-year period, and the difference in primary nonadherence between patients who received electronic pr

101 erence and retention; (2) 22.2% showed early nonadherence but consistent retention; (3) 21.6% showed

102 bserved effects strongly suggest that modest nonadherence can cause new cycles of HIV-1 replication t

103 operative complication rate was 4.5% but in "nonadherence" cases (n = 52 residents operating on highe

104 Risk factors for nonadherence could not be identified in our population.

105 considered to have experienced cost-related nonadherence (CRN) if in the preceding 12 months they re

106 Primary nonadherence decreased with age (<30 y, 38.9%; 30-49 y,

107 Primary nonadherence decreased with age but then increased in el

108 barriers were associated with higher odds of nonadherence: decreased self-efficacy (OR, 4.7; 95% CI,

109 mary outcome was the overall rate of primary nonadherence, defined as filling and picking up all pres

110 t proportion of underuse is owing to primary nonadherence, defined as the rate at which patients fail

111 ultivariable analysis adjusting for reported nonadherence demonstrated lower mortality among patients

112 Nonadherence described did not impact treatment outcomes

113 This paper summarizes the scope of CVD nonadherence, describes key U.S. Food and Drug Administr

114 ciated with financial hardship and treatment nonadherence during and following adjuvant chemotherapy

115 conditions was associated with adherence or nonadherence for HT, respectively.

116 Adherence and nonadherence for medications for each of the 6 medical c

117 we estimated the risk of discontinuation and nonadherence for patients with higher (top quartile) ver

118 the BCR-ABL1 doubling time could distinguish nonadherence from resistance as the cause of lost respon

119 Medication nonadherence has been increasingly recognized as a major

120 Three potentially modifiable contributors to nonadherence have been identified.

121 al abuse (hazard ratio=1.85), and medication nonadherence (hazard ratio=1.39) were associated with fu

122 Medication nonadherence history may play an important role in deter

123 Optimizing medication regimens can reduce nonadherence; however, often a complex interplay of fact

124 ificant difference by sex or age for primary nonadherence in any of the 3 treatment-number groups.

125 trial assessment) were each associated with nonadherence in at least 1 area at follow-up (P < 0.05).

126 The factors predicting nonadherence in heart failure remain unclear.

127 identify which factors were responsible for nonadherence in the EAT study.

128 ly and significantly associated with overall nonadherence in the EIG.

129 pre-ART drug resistance mutations (DRMs) vs nonadherence in the etiology of elevated VL are unknown.

130 Nearly 43% reported CVD-medication nonadherence in the past month.

131 for tobacco use, with 31% clinic appointment nonadherence in the past year.

132 The cost and health implications of nonadherence in the screening process compared with reco

133 Treatment nonadherence in transplant recipients has been associate

134 ey were less likely to adhere to medication (nonadherence in youngest vs. oldest: 24% vs. 7%, p = 0.0

135 haracteristics most strongly associated with nonadherence, including age >84 years, not having an AMI

136 Nonadherence is a critical issue in transplantation.

137 Recent research has highlighted that nonadherence is a global challenge for psychiatry and ha

138 Early declining medication nonadherence is associated with adverse clinical outcome

139 Medication nonadherence is associated with worse outcomes in patien

140 Primary nonadherence is common and may be reduced by lower drug

141 Early nonadherence is especially problematic.

142 and decreases errors, its effect on primary nonadherence is less certain.

143 The etiology of nonadherence is multifactorial, with the strongest risk

144 and despite the seriousness of the disease, nonadherence is occurring.

145 However, nonadherence is often a hidden issue within consultation

146 Primary nonadherence is probably an important contributor to sub

147 Moreover, nonadherence is the main determinant of immunosuppressiv

148 Understanding and reducing nonadherence is therefore a key challenge to quality car

149 ng the categories of factors contributing to nonadherence is useful in managing nonadherence.

150 stimates ranging from 75% to no effect, with nonadherence likely resulting in attenuated estimates of

151 e (proportion of prescribed doses taken) and nonadherence (<90% adherent) between dosing patterns.

152 c medication monitoring further reveals that nonadherence manifests early after transplant, although

153 monitoring for and interventions to prevent nonadherence may be necessary to optimize stroke prevent

154 Increased clinician awareness of DOAC nonadherence may help identify at-risk patients.

155 nosticators, we found that patients with 6MP nonadherence (mean adherence rate <95%) were at a 2.7-fo

156 dent risk factors common to all cost-related nonadherence measures were female sex, younger age, lowe

157 ims for a hormonal therapy prescription) and nonadherence (medication possession rate < 80%) was exam

158 type, thioguanine nucleotide levels, and 6MP nonadherence (MEMS-based adherence <95%) associated with

159 Medication nonadherence (MNA) after solid organ transplantation is

160 Medication nonadherence (MNA) is considered to be the primary deter

161 ome a reality, then solutions for medication nonadherence must be found and implemented.

162 commonly reported contraindications included nonadherence (n=109, 89%), reduced left ventricular ejec

163 rospective studies on the natural history of nonadherence (NA) in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs)

164 A history of mental health (MH) disorders or nonadherence (NA) may be barriers to completing the work

165 tence, and clinical outcomes associated with nonadherence/nonpersistence.

166 Unresolved nonadherence, not NRTI resistance, drives early second-l

167 consistent with the pervasive and increasing nonadherence observed.

168 forts must be made to understand why primary nonadherence occurs, identify patients prone to primary

169 -up eye care appointment was associated with nonadherence (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.45-0.99).

170 the modifiable factors contributing to early nonadherence of evidence-based medications after acute M

171 The association with resistance and nonadherence on switching to second-line ART requires cl

172 ditions that did not allow for the impact of nonadherence or feeding on the possible pharmacokinetic

173 This may have been due to medication nonadherence or, alternatively, due to the weak efficacy

174 ess than college (OR, 1.4, P = .05); and 6MP nonadherence (OR, 9.4, P < .001).

175 Lack of adherence (nonadherence) or undertreatment (nonpersistence) with re

176 and was characterized by young age, frequent nonadherence, or suboptimal immunosuppression and de nov

177 -reported glaucoma who reported cost-related nonadherence over the previous 12 months.

178 VL changes were modest, mainly driven by nonadherence (P = .006) and PI mutation development (P =

179 rs were significantly related to EIG overall nonadherence: parent-reported IgE-type symptoms with inf

180 The TDA-derived predictive model for nonadherence performed well in an independent population

181 ed with missed appointments and whether such nonadherence poses significant harm to patients and incr

182 dical interpretation, albumin level, medical nonadherence, previous number of emergency department vi

183 opayment, low SEP was associated with statin nonadherence (proportion of days covered <80%) among men

184 Early detection of nonadherence provides opportunities to target interventi

185 nic medications (n = 4214 [20%]) had a 23.1% nonadherence rate to HT (OR 1.43; 95% CI, 1.30-1.58).

186 nd were adherent (n = 9223 [43%]) had a 9.8% nonadherence rate to HT (relative to those without prior

187 nic conditions (n = 7828 [37%]) had an 18.4% nonadherence rate to HT.

188 However, this conclusion is tempered by the nonadherence rate.

189 Comparing nonadherence rates eight weeks prior to enrollment, medi

190 Nonadherence rates in the past month were 23%-81% for se

191 The nonadherence rates of 36.6% and 21.3% for this national

192 Pocket PATH and usual care groups' nonadherence rates were compared; multivariable regressi

193 P = .01) significantly correlated with graft nonadherence rates within the first postoperative week.

194 patient volumes were associated with higher nonadherence rates.

195 Primary nonadherence refers to not obtaining and starting to tak

196 f their wide-spread use, discontinuation and nonadherence remains a major gap in both the primary and

197 Nonadherence remains a significant challenge for patient

198 However, nonadherence remains a significant challenge.

199 onfirmed in the subgroup of patients with no nonadherence reported during follow-up.

200 uggests that efforts to improve cost-related nonadherence should focus both on financial hardship and

201 Nonadherence significantly increased over time to 31% at

202 cific antibodies (52% vs. 13%; P=0.001), and nonadherence/suboptimal immunosuppression (56% vs. 0%; P

203 Nonadherence, suggested by subtherapeutic ART with/witho

204 n 6-MP ingestion habits were associated with nonadherence (taking 6-MP with dairy [odds ratio (OR), 1

205 eir medications may be a better predictor of nonadherence than demographic factors.

206 an be associated with misuse, diversion, and nonadherence; these limitations may be obviated by a sus

207 examined 30-day FOBT completion by previous nonadherence to a prescribed FOBT.

208 ant role in determining patients at risk for nonadherence to a subsequent medication for a different

209 Nonadherence to ACE inhibitors/ARBs and/or statins was a

210 The frequency of primary nonadherence to acne treatment has not been well charact

211 Nonadherence to adjuvant hormonal therapy is common and

212 e sought to evaluate the rate of biochemical nonadherence to adjuvant tamoxifen using serum assessmen

213 Nonadherence to antidepressant medication is common and

214 In the DENERHTN trial, the prevalence of nonadherence to antihypertensive drugs at 6 months was h

215 Nonadherence to appropriately prescribed medication for

216 Nonadherence to aromatase inhibitors (AIs) for breast ca

217 ink from cognitive impairment and medication nonadherence to clinical outcomes (eg, hospitalization a

218 There is a high prevalence of nonadherence to CONSORT guidelines among leading cardiov

219 To analyze factors associated with primary nonadherence to dermatologic medications and study wheth

220 imary care, a planned revisit, the patient's nonadherence to ED recommendations, or poor-quality care

221 Multiple variables were associated with nonadherence to eye exams, with insurance status having

222 ifying patients with pediatric glaucomas for nonadherence to follow-up.

223 Understanding factors that lead to nonadherence to glaucoma treatment is important to dimin

224 The impact of nonadherence to guidelines on patient outcomes needs to

225 for women with nonmetastatic breast cancer, nonadherence to HT is common.

226 Nonadherence to HT was defined as an MPR less than 80% b

227 testing is an effective means of identifying nonadherence to ICS in subjects with difficult-to-contro

228 bserved ICS therapy over 7 days can identify nonadherence to ICS treatment in difficult-to-control as

229 Conversely, nonadherence to imatinib and other TKIs undoubtedly resu

230 s following kidney transplantation including nonadherence to immunosuppressant medication, graft fail

231 mong patients stratified by center report of nonadherence to immunosuppression that compromised recov

232 Nonadherence to immunosuppressive (IS) therapy is associ

233 ater mortality hazard and greater chances of nonadherence to immunosuppressive medication after HTx,

234 Nonadherence to immunosuppressive medication after kidne

235 high mortality risk attributed to increased nonadherence to immunosuppressive medication in this age

236 Nonadherence to inhaled corticosteroid therapy (ICS) is

237 cantly associated with study site (P = .03), nonadherence to initial therapy (adjusted odds ratio [AO

238 , the Pocket PATH group showed lower risk of nonadherence to lifestyle requirements (diet/exercise) t

239 Nonadherence to long-term treatments is often under-reco

240 h care resources is limited, possibly due to nonadherence to management recommendations.

241 lt, Child Protective Services (CPS) reports, nonadherence to medical care, and immunization delay amo

242 We assessed changes in cost-related nonadherence to medication (CRN) before and after the im

243 Nonadherence to medication is a salient cause of poor ou

244 f hypertension and pseudoresistance, such as nonadherence to medication, intolerance of medication, a

245 One in 8 patients with ASCVD reports nonadherence to medications because of cost.

246 aucoma more frequently reported cost-related nonadherence to medications compared with participants w

247 Main Exposures and Outcomes: Nonadherence to medications for 6 chronic conditions (hy

248 Conclusions and Relevance: We found that nonadherence to medications for chronic conditions prior

249 ed the association between patterns of prior nonadherence to medications for chronic conditions with

250 doresistant hypertension, which results from nonadherence to medications or from elevated blood press

251 AS (OR 3.98, 95% CI 1.01-15.81, P=0.039) and nonadherence to Milan criteria (OR 5.69, 95% CI 1.14-28.

252 Specifically, nonadherence to onset-to-treatment time >3 hours increas

253 ions prior to HT was associated with greater nonadherence to oral HT in patients with breast cancer.

254 Nonadherence to oral MP could increase relapse risk and

255 obal challenge for psychiatry and has linked nonadherence to poorer outcomes, including hospital admi

256 having resistant hypertension (RHT) although nonadherence to prescribed antihypertensive medications

257 Nonadherence to prescribed evidence-based medications af

258 Nonadherence to prescribed medication has been identifie

259 intent-to-treat study, which controlled for nonadherence to prescribed regimens.

260 Variables of interest were nonadherence to procedural standards, use problems with

261 e strongest predictors of physician-reported nonadherence to published recommendations.

262 ess the risk of fatal stroke associated with nonadherence to statin and/or antihypertensive therapy.

263 s reveal substantial underutilization of and nonadherence to statin therapy for secondary prevention.

264 ccurred infrequently and was associated with nonadherence to study medication in the majority of case

265 In breast cancer, nonadherence to tamoxifen therapy after surgery constitu

266 Self-reported nonadherence to tamoxifen therapy was collected at the s

267 ality by 8% (95% UR: 4%-13%), while reducing nonadherence to the corresponding regimens by 50% reduce

268 nd/or decrease risk of disease compared with nonadherence to the diet?

269 rom which $2 was subtracted for every day of nonadherence to the monitoring goals.

270 Nonadherence to the Society for Vascular Surgery guideli

271 ew recommendations were promptly adopted and nonadherence to the unchanged label increased.

272 titis C antibody, less education, and recent nonadherence to treatment.

273 In multivariate analysis, nonadherence to ventilation treatment with continuous po

274 Identify a test for nonadherence using fractional exhaled nitric oxide (Fe(N

275 multivariable analysis, the risk of primary nonadherence was 16 percentage points lower among patien

276 The overall rate of primary nonadherence was 31.6% (n = 788).

277 Nonadherence was also associated with bowel preparation

278 DOAC nonadherence was associated with an increased risk of st

279 id not report history of SI at baseline, ARV nonadherence was associated with sexual initiation durin

280 Definition of biochemical nonadherence was based on a tamoxifen serum level < 60 n

281 Nonadherence was defined as a medication possession rati

282 sing the Medication Event Monitoring System; nonadherence was defined as adherence rate < 95%.

283 Primary nonadherence was defined as not filling an incident pres

284 Nonadherence was defined as taking </= 75% prescribed do

285 A predictive model for nonadherence was developed from the Travatan Dosing Aid

286 rollment factors, and their association with nonadherence was explored.

287 Patient-reported rate of nonadherence was lower (12.3%).

288 , 3, 4, or 5 prescriptions, rates of primary nonadherence were 33.1%, 28.8%, 26.4%, 39.8%, and 38.1%,

289 Reduced odds of nonadherence were associated with increasing patient age

290 ndently associated with an increased risk of nonadherence were negative general beliefs about medicat

291 er imaging technologies, polygenic risk, and nonadherence were not considered.

292 High rates of nonadherence were similarly reported, occurring in 32% t

293 sely, in women, associations between SEP and nonadherence were weak and inconsistent.

294 osts, and history of cost-related medication nonadherence) were obtained immediately before and 3 mon

295 Medication nonadherence, which has been estimated to affect 28% to

296 Overall, 17% (4/23) had documented nonadherence while 69% (16/23) had physician-recommended

297 univariate analysis, there was less primary nonadherence with electronic prescriptions compared with

298 of repeated hospitalizations attributable to nonadherence with outpatient treatment.

299 outcomes included the association of primary nonadherence with sex, age, relationship status, primary

300 ality, altered digestion and absorption, and nonadherence with supplementation regimens contribute to