ライフサイエンスコーパス: nonadherence

1 atios=3.7-28.5, depending on the severity of nonadherence).

2 tor scale, which assesses beliefs related to nonadherence.

3 electronic prescription status with primary nonadherence.

4 ne of the variables measured were related to nonadherence.

5 ipients persisted in the absence of reported nonadherence.

6 5% CI, 1.1-12.3) was associated with primary nonadherence.

7 iated with a higher likelihood of medication nonadherence.

8 we need more information on risk factors for nonadherence.

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

10 rimary outcomes were TKI discontinuation and nonadherence.

11 e associated with increased rates of primary nonadherence.

12 iation between life chaos and CVD-medication nonadherence.

13 screenings could identify those at risk for nonadherence.

14 techniques may have the potential to reduce nonadherence.

15 life chaos is associated with CVD-medication nonadherence.

16 [1.02-1.12]) in odds of reporting medication nonadherence.

17 quartile increased, patients exhibited more nonadherence.

18 ctronic prescribing affects rates of primary nonadherence.

19 were most closely associated with treatment nonadherence.

20 t their transplant and medication beliefs in nonadherence.

21 ciated with financial hardship and treatment nonadherence.

22 tem) were tested to identify contributors to nonadherence.

23 patient in CP should raise the suspicion of nonadherence.

24 and did not achieve a higher proportion with nonadherence.

25 socioeconomic status associated with higher nonadherence.

26 Similar results were seen with nonadherence.

27 tential objective tool to monitor medication nonadherence.

28 ly brief periods of antipsychotic medication nonadherence.

29 sciplines involved of the key issues driving nonadherence.

30 Younger women are at high risk of nonadherence.

31 to take medications is an important cause of nonadherence.

32 ge range persists in the absence of reported nonadherence.

33 improved survival in the absence of reported nonadherence.

34 Interface fluid metrics, graft nonadherence.

35 scriptions were associated with less primary nonadherence.

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

37 excess risk of stroke death associated with nonadherence.

38 o medications for chronic conditions with HT nonadherence.

39 cially low income) is associated with statin nonadherence.

40 increased comorbidities were associated with nonadherence.

41 between prior medication nonadherence and HT nonadherence.

42 ween humoral immunity, cellular immunity and 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 nonadherence (7%; 95% CI, 3%-12%), moderate nonadherence (13%; 95% CI, 8%-20%), mild nonadherence (2

47 ormation criterion = -23611.8): severe early nonadherence (13%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8%-20%)

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

49 ate nonadherence (13%; 95% CI, 8%-20%), mild nonadherence (26%; 95% CI, 19%-34%), and near-perfect ad

50 adherence, (2) the prevalence of medication nonadherence, (3) the association between nonadherence a

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

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

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

54 dence interval [CI], 8%-20%), severe delayed nonadherence (7%; 95% CI, 3%-12%), moderate nonadherence

55 Medication nonadherence, a major problem in cardiovascular disease

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

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

58 sed on a preclinical model, demonstrate that nonadherence alone is not a sufficient condition for MDR

59 Nonadherence also increased in this group (antihypertens

60 Nonadherence also increased to the contraindications sev

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

70 on nonadherence, (3) the association between nonadherence and outcomes, (4) the reasons for nonadhere

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 ntly no reliable method to detect medication nonadherence and prevent allograft rejection.

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

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

76 ared with SD alone, for assessing medication nonadherence and the possibility of allograft rejection

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

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

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

80 wo had poor inhaler technique (unintentional nonadherence), and one also denied nonadherence to predn

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 nadherence and outcomes, (4) the reasons for nonadherence, and finally, (5) interventions to improve

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

85 identified important factors associated with nonadherence, and two recent trials tested interventions

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

87 The identified psychosocial correlates of nonadherence are potential targets for intervention.

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 The level of nonadherence associated with emergence of MDR-tuberculos

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

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

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

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

96 , was initiated to gain further insight into nonadherence behavior and to identify priorities for opt

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

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

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

104 Primary nonadherence decreased with age but then increased in el

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

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

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

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

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

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

111 dentified 13 as nonadherent; eight confirmed nonadherence during interview (three of whom had excelle

112 y diagnosed epilepsy demonstrated persistent nonadherence during the first 6 months of therapy.

113 The nonadherence end point (nonattender) was two failures to

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

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

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

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

118 y failure was only encountered at extents of nonadherence >/=60%.

119 Medication nonadherence has been increasingly recognized as a major

120 Three potentially modifiable contributors to nonadherence have been identified.

121 Medication nonadherence history may play an important role in deter

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

123 d the recognized complications of medication nonadherence in adults with epilepsy, identifying the ra

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

125 fying the rates, patterns, and predictors of nonadherence in children with epilepsy is imperative.

126 he onset and evolution of antiepileptic drug nonadherence in children with newly diagnosed epilepsy r

127 The factors predicting nonadherence in heart failure remain unclear.

128 13/426, 3%) and was attributed to documented nonadherence in most cases (11/13, 85%).

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

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

131 Treatment nonadherence in transplant recipients has been associate

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

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

134 Nonadherence increases both general and cardiac-specific

135 Nonadherence is a critical issue in transplantation.

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

137 Acute rejection associated with medication nonadherence is a major cause of allograft loss in pedia

138 Early declining medication nonadherence is associated with adverse clinical outcome

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

140 Medication nonadherence is common and results in preventable diseas

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 losis studies, we recently demonstrated that nonadherence is not a significant factor for ADR and tha

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

146 However, nonadherence is often a hidden issue within consultation

147 Primary nonadherence is probably an important contributor to sub

148 Moreover, nonadherence is the main determinant of immunosuppressiv

149 It is believed that nonadherence is the proximate cause of multidrug-resista

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

151 Nonadherence is tightly linked to suboptimal glycemic co

152 Even brief periods of partial nonadherence lead to greater risk of relapse than what i

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

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

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 rs associated with early discontinuation and nonadherence (medication possession ratio < 80%) of horm

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

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

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

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

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

164 consistent with the pervasive and increasing nonadherence observed.

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

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

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

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

169 This study examined the effect of medication nonadherence on the return of positive symptoms among re

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

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

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

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

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

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

176 ce regarding prevalence and risk factors for nonadherence posttransplant.

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

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

179 Early detection of nonadherence provides opportunities to target interventi

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

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

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

183 The immunosuppression nonadherence rate was six cases per 100 PPY.

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

185 Comparing nonadherence rates eight weeks prior to enrollment, medi

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

187 patient volumes were associated with higher nonadherence rates.

188 Primary nonadherence refers to not obtaining and starting to tak

189 Nonadherence remains a significant challenge for patient

190 However, nonadherence remains a significant challenge.

191 Despite its importance, nonadherence remains a significant problem among this po

192 over time, though the overall prevalence of nonadherence remains significant.

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

194 As hypothesized, medication nonadherence robustly predicted a return of psychotic sy

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

196 Nonadherence significantly increased over time to 31% at

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

198 Nonadherence, suggested by subtherapeutic ART with/witho

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

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

201 t represents a small component of medication nonadherence, the correlates to abandonment highlight im

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

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

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

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

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

207 Nonadherence to adjuvant hormonal therapy is common and

208 were associated with both nonpersistence and nonadherence to AIs.

209 Nonadherence to antidepressant medication is common and

210 ere identified that captured the spectrum of nonadherence to antiepileptic drugs among children with

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

212 Nonadherence to appropriately prescribed medication for

213 Only the rate of nonadherence to clinic appointments and tests varied by

214 Across all types of transplantation, nonadherence to clinic appointments and tests was most p

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

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

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

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

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

220 and predictors of early discontinuation and nonadherence to hormonal therapy in patients enrolled in

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

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

223 Depression strongly predicts nonadherence to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) antir

224 Conversely, nonadherence to imatinib and other TKIs undoubtedly resu

225 Nonadherence to immunosuppressant medication is a signif

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

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

228 Nonadherence to immunosuppressive (IS) therapy is associ

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

230 Nonadherence to immunosuppressive medication after kidne

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

232 Nonadherence to inhaled corticosteroid therapy (ICS) is

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

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

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

236 Nonadherence to medical treatment in transplant recipien

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

238 Nonadherence to medication is a salient cause of poor ou

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

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

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

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

243 Nonadherence to medications occurs in up to 70% of patie

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

245 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.

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

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

248 Nonadherence to oral MP could increase relapse risk and

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

250 tentional nonadherence), and one also denied nonadherence to prednisolone despite nonadherent blood l

251 Nonadherence to prescribed evidence-based medications af

252 Nonadherence to prescribed medication has been identifie

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

254 Whether nonadherence to prophylaxis played a small or large role

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

256 s did not have an explanation documented for nonadherence to recommended care.

257 % CI, 24.5% to 32.9%) of physicians reported nonadherence to screening recommendations for women at l

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

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

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

261 Nonadherence to substance use restrictions, diet, exerci

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

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

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

265 ble exceptions to care processes account for nonadherence to the quality indicators.

266 Nonadherence to the Society for Vascular Surgery guideli

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

268 opic myopia or hyperopia and in the event of nonadherence to traditional medical treatment, phakic an

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

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

271 ission, as well as to antiretroviral therapy nonadherence, treatment interruptions, and missed clinic

272 ng but did not take medication), five denied nonadherence, two had poor inhaler technique (unintentio

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

274 stered daily for 28-56 days, with extents of nonadherence varying between 0% and 100%.

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 Nonadherence was associated with higher total all-cause

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

280 Nonadherence was defined as a medication possession rati

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

287 Reduced odds of nonadherence were associated with increasing patient age

288 eporting likelihood of being reprimanded for nonadherence were more likely to adhere (odds ratio 2.40

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

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

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

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

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

294 sets of operational criteria for medication nonadherence with differing levels of severity were comp

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

296 DEs), as well as medication discrepancies or nonadherence with high potential for future harm (potent

297 of repeated hospitalizations attributable to nonadherence with outpatient treatment.

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

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

300 ial in which some patients are randomized to nonadherence would be unethical; therefore, other study