Multifaceted behavioral interventions to improve topical glaucoma therapy adherence in adults.

IF 8.8 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Zanna Kruoch, Pathik Amin, Erica Shelton, Aaron B Zimmerman, Emily Stephey, Megan Hunter, Laura E Downie, Riaz Qureshi
{"title":"Multifaceted behavioral interventions to improve topical glaucoma therapy adherence in adults.","authors":"Zanna Kruoch, Pathik Amin, Erica Shelton, Aaron B Zimmerman, Emily Stephey, Megan Hunter, Laura E Downie, Riaz Qureshi","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD015788.pub2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>Glaucoma is a leading cause of vision loss and blindness, characterized by optic nerve damage and commonly by increased intraocular pressure (IOP). Topical medical therapy is the most common first-line treatment option, yet adherence to these medications is notably low. Improving medication adherence is critical for managing glaucoma effectively.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the impact of two or more behavioral interventions (i.e. multifaceted interventions) on topical glaucoma therapy adherence in people utilizing IOP-lowering therapy for at least three months for treating ocular hypertension or glaucoma.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched four electronic databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS), two clinical trial registries, and checked references. The latest search date was 31 May 2024.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating multifaceted behavioral interventions (≥ 3 months) for topical glaucoma therapy adherence compared with standard care in adults with glaucoma or ocular hypertension.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>Outcomes were change in adherence to topical IOP-lowering medications, change in IOP, optical coherence tomography (OCT) stability, visual field (VF) stability, proportion of participants with disease stability, change in quality of life scores, and adverse events. The time point for these measurements was three months or longer follow-up. We extracted any information related to equity and social determinants of health, and their potential influence on the administration of or outcomes from the interventions.</p><p><strong>Risk of bias: </strong>We assessed the risk of bias for all outcomes reported in the summary of findings tables using the Cochrane risk of bias 2 (RoB 2) tool, except for outcomes where no data were available.</p><p><strong>Synthesis methods: </strong>Where possible, we synthesized results for outcomes using random-effects meta-analysis of risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes. Where meta-analysis was not possible due to the available data, we synthesized the results qualitatively following Cochrane-recommended approaches; including summarizing effect estimates and vote counting, accompanied by forest plots to show estimates without meta-analyses and harvest plots. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for prespecified outcomes.</p><p><strong>Included studies: </strong>We included 17 RCTs that enrolled 4536 participants, ranging from 64 to 1800 per study. The mean age of participants ranged from 42 to 76 years. Studies were conducted across North America, Europe, and Asia, with most in the USA (47%). Among 12 studies reporting race and ethnicity, most participants were White (62%), followed by Black (26%), Asian (7%), Hispanic (1%), and others (3%). Follow-up periods ranged from 3 to 24 months. All but one study received financial support from multiple sources. We assessed the risk of bias in 25 outcome measures across 17 studies. We judged one study to be at low risk of bias for both adherence to topical IOP-lowering medications and IOP measures. Four studies reported both outcomes and overall were judged to have some bias concerns, and we judged three studies to have some bias concerns for only adherence. Two studies reported both outcomes with high risk of bias, and another study had a high overall risk of bias for adherence and some concerns for IOP. The remaining nine studies reported adherence only, and we judged these as having some concerns (three studies) or high risk (six studies) of overall bias.</p><p><strong>Synthesis of results: </strong>In general, evidence on the effect of multifaceted interventions in improving glaucoma-related outcomes was inconsistent. We conducted an overall meta-analysis of adherent participants that included all comparisons and related subgroups, suggesting any multifaceted intervention may increase the proportion of adherent participants over any control, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 1.38; 8 studies, 2184 participants; I<sup>2</sup> = 71%; very low-certainty evidence). Another overall meta-analysis across two comparisons and three subgroups found multifaceted interventions may have little to no improvement on adherence measured by final mean (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.09; 4 studies, 758 participants). Qualitatively, vote-counting of estimates showed 14/17 (82%) estimates in favor of multifaceted interventions for improving adherence. Overall, the certainty of the evidence for difference in adherence was 'very low.' We classified included studies into three comparisons: 1. three or more components, composed of education plus two or more (five studies); 2. two components, including education plus one component with or without standard care (11 studies); and 3. two components, including devices plus other with or without standard care (one study). The comparators were standard care or other interventions. Vote-counting for difference in adherence for comparisons 1, 2, and 3 found 5/6 (83%), 8/10 (80%), and 1/1 (100%) estimates favored intervention, respectively. Certainty of the evidence regarding differences in adherence for Comparisons 1, 2, and 3 were 'very low', 'low', and 'low' respectively, primarily due to risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. We had limited and mixed evidence for IOP and VF due to variabilities in outcome measurements across studies and insufficient data. Multifaceted interventions may not result in any IOP or VF improvements. No included studies reported the other prespecified outcome measures. Only five included studies reported whether social determinants of health had any associations with adherence to topical glaucoma medications. The social determinants addressed were race, education level of the participants, marital status, employment status, income level, age, number of chronic diseases, and level of health literacy. Evidence for the influence of these characteristics on intervention effectiveness was mixed.</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>Based on very low- and low-certainty evidence identified in this review, it is unclear if multifaceted behavioral interventions have a beneficial effect on patient adherence to topical IOP-lowering medications and IOP in people with ocular hypertension or glaucoma. In most cases, we were unable to conduct meta-analysis due to the diversity of interventions, varying outcome definitions, and inconsistent reporting across studies. Future research would benefit from the adoption of standardized measurements and reporting methods for adherence to medication and clinical outcomes on disease stability, while taking social determinants into account.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Project is supported by grant UG1EY020522, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>Protocol available via doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD015788.</p>","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"6 ","pages":"CD015788"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12153040/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD015788.pub2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rationale: Glaucoma is a leading cause of vision loss and blindness, characterized by optic nerve damage and commonly by increased intraocular pressure (IOP). Topical medical therapy is the most common first-line treatment option, yet adherence to these medications is notably low. Improving medication adherence is critical for managing glaucoma effectively.

Objectives: To assess the impact of two or more behavioral interventions (i.e. multifaceted interventions) on topical glaucoma therapy adherence in people utilizing IOP-lowering therapy for at least three months for treating ocular hypertension or glaucoma.

Search methods: We searched four electronic databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS), two clinical trial registries, and checked references. The latest search date was 31 May 2024.

Eligibility criteria: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating multifaceted behavioral interventions (≥ 3 months) for topical glaucoma therapy adherence compared with standard care in adults with glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

Outcomes: Outcomes were change in adherence to topical IOP-lowering medications, change in IOP, optical coherence tomography (OCT) stability, visual field (VF) stability, proportion of participants with disease stability, change in quality of life scores, and adverse events. The time point for these measurements was three months or longer follow-up. We extracted any information related to equity and social determinants of health, and their potential influence on the administration of or outcomes from the interventions.

Risk of bias: We assessed the risk of bias for all outcomes reported in the summary of findings tables using the Cochrane risk of bias 2 (RoB 2) tool, except for outcomes where no data were available.

Synthesis methods: Where possible, we synthesized results for outcomes using random-effects meta-analysis of risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes. Where meta-analysis was not possible due to the available data, we synthesized the results qualitatively following Cochrane-recommended approaches; including summarizing effect estimates and vote counting, accompanied by forest plots to show estimates without meta-analyses and harvest plots. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for prespecified outcomes.

Included studies: We included 17 RCTs that enrolled 4536 participants, ranging from 64 to 1800 per study. The mean age of participants ranged from 42 to 76 years. Studies were conducted across North America, Europe, and Asia, with most in the USA (47%). Among 12 studies reporting race and ethnicity, most participants were White (62%), followed by Black (26%), Asian (7%), Hispanic (1%), and others (3%). Follow-up periods ranged from 3 to 24 months. All but one study received financial support from multiple sources. We assessed the risk of bias in 25 outcome measures across 17 studies. We judged one study to be at low risk of bias for both adherence to topical IOP-lowering medications and IOP measures. Four studies reported both outcomes and overall were judged to have some bias concerns, and we judged three studies to have some bias concerns for only adherence. Two studies reported both outcomes with high risk of bias, and another study had a high overall risk of bias for adherence and some concerns for IOP. The remaining nine studies reported adherence only, and we judged these as having some concerns (three studies) or high risk (six studies) of overall bias.

Synthesis of results: In general, evidence on the effect of multifaceted interventions in improving glaucoma-related outcomes was inconsistent. We conducted an overall meta-analysis of adherent participants that included all comparisons and related subgroups, suggesting any multifaceted intervention may increase the proportion of adherent participants over any control, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 1.38; 8 studies, 2184 participants; I2 = 71%; very low-certainty evidence). Another overall meta-analysis across two comparisons and three subgroups found multifaceted interventions may have little to no improvement on adherence measured by final mean (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.09; 4 studies, 758 participants). Qualitatively, vote-counting of estimates showed 14/17 (82%) estimates in favor of multifaceted interventions for improving adherence. Overall, the certainty of the evidence for difference in adherence was 'very low.' We classified included studies into three comparisons: 1. three or more components, composed of education plus two or more (five studies); 2. two components, including education plus one component with or without standard care (11 studies); and 3. two components, including devices plus other with or without standard care (one study). The comparators were standard care or other interventions. Vote-counting for difference in adherence for comparisons 1, 2, and 3 found 5/6 (83%), 8/10 (80%), and 1/1 (100%) estimates favored intervention, respectively. Certainty of the evidence regarding differences in adherence for Comparisons 1, 2, and 3 were 'very low', 'low', and 'low' respectively, primarily due to risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. We had limited and mixed evidence for IOP and VF due to variabilities in outcome measurements across studies and insufficient data. Multifaceted interventions may not result in any IOP or VF improvements. No included studies reported the other prespecified outcome measures. Only five included studies reported whether social determinants of health had any associations with adherence to topical glaucoma medications. The social determinants addressed were race, education level of the participants, marital status, employment status, income level, age, number of chronic diseases, and level of health literacy. Evidence for the influence of these characteristics on intervention effectiveness was mixed.

Authors' conclusions: Based on very low- and low-certainty evidence identified in this review, it is unclear if multifaceted behavioral interventions have a beneficial effect on patient adherence to topical IOP-lowering medications and IOP in people with ocular hypertension or glaucoma. In most cases, we were unable to conduct meta-analysis due to the diversity of interventions, varying outcome definitions, and inconsistent reporting across studies. Future research would benefit from the adoption of standardized measurements and reporting methods for adherence to medication and clinical outcomes on disease stability, while taking social determinants into account.

Funding: Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Project is supported by grant UG1EY020522, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health.

Registration: Protocol available via doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD015788.

多方面行为干预提高成人局部青光眼治疗依从性。
理由:青光眼是视力丧失和失明的主要原因,其特征是视神经损伤,通常表现为眼压升高。局部药物治疗是最常见的一线治疗选择,但对这些药物的依从性明显较低。提高药物依从性是有效治疗青光眼的关键。目的:评估两种或多种行为干预(即多方面干预)对使用降低眼压治疗至少三个月的患者局部青光眼治疗依从性的影响。检索方法:检索了四个电子数据库(CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS),两个临床试验注册库,并检查了参考文献。最近一次搜索日期是2024年5月31日。入选标准:我们纳入了随机对照试验(rct),评估多层面行为干预(≥3个月)对成人青光眼或高眼压患者局部青光眼治疗依从性的影响。结果:结果包括局部降低眼压药物依从性的变化、眼压的变化、光学相干断层扫描(OCT)稳定性、视野(VF)稳定性、疾病稳定性的参与者比例、生活质量评分的变化和不良事件。这些测量的时间点是三个月或更长时间的随访。我们提取了与公平和健康的社会决定因素有关的任何信息,以及它们对干预措施的管理或结果的潜在影响。偏倚风险:我们使用Cochrane偏倚风险2 (RoB 2)工具评估了结果摘要表中报告的所有结果的偏倚风险,但没有数据的结果除外。综合方法:在可能的情况下,我们使用随机效应荟萃分析对二分结局的风险比(rr)和对连续结局的平均差(MD)或标准化平均差(SMD)进行综合结果。由于现有的数据无法进行meta分析,我们按照cochrane推荐的方法对结果进行定性综合;包括总结效果估计和投票计数,并附有森林图,以显示没有meta分析和收获图的估计。我们使用GRADE方法来评估预先指定结果的证据的确定性。纳入的研究:我们纳入了17项随机对照试验,共纳入4536名受试者,每项研究从64至1800人不等。参与者的平均年龄从42岁到76岁不等。研究在北美、欧洲和亚洲进行,其中大部分在美国(47%)。在12项报告种族和民族的研究中,大多数参与者是白人(62%),其次是黑人(26%),亚洲人(7%),西班牙裔(1%)和其他(3%)。随访时间为3至24个月。除了一项研究外,所有研究都得到了来自多个来源的资金支持。我们评估了17项研究中25项结果测量的偏倚风险。我们判断一项研究在坚持使用局部降低眼压药物和测量眼压方面的偏倚风险较低。四项研究报告了两种结果和总体结果,被认为存在偏倚问题,我们判断三项研究仅对依从性存在偏倚问题。两项研究报告了两种结果的高偏倚风险,另一项研究报告了依从性和眼压的高偏倚风险。其余9项研究仅报告了依从性,我们判断这些研究存在一些总体偏倚的担忧(3项研究)或高风险(6项研究)。综合结果:总的来说,多方面干预在改善青光眼相关结局方面的效果的证据是不一致的。我们对依从性参与者进行了全面的荟萃分析,包括所有比较和相关亚组,表明任何多层面干预都可能增加依从性参与者的比例,但证据非常不确定(RR 1.18, 95%可信区间(CI) 1.01至1.38;8项研究,2184名受试者;I2 = 71%;非常低确定性证据)。另一项跨两个比较和三个亚组的整体荟萃分析发现,以最终平均值衡量,多方面干预可能对依从性几乎没有改善(SMD为0.03,95% CI为-0.19至0.09;4项研究,758名参与者)。定性地说,对估计的计票显示14/17(82%)的估计赞成采用多方面干预措施来改善依从性。总的来说,依从性差异的证据的确定性“非常低”。我们将纳入的研究分为三个比较:1。三个或三个以上组成部分,由教育加上两个或两个以上组成(五个研究);2. 两个组成部分,包括教育加上一个有或没有标准护理的组成部分(11项研究);和3。两个组成部分,包括器械加其他有或没有标准护理(一项研究)。比较者采用标准护理或其他干预措施。 对比较1、2和3中依从性差异的投票计数分别发现5/6(83%)、8/10(80%)和1/1(100%)的估计值支持干预。比较1、2和3中关于依从性差异的证据的确定性分别为“非常低”、“低”和“低”,主要是由于存在偏倚、不精确和不一致的风险。由于各研究结果测量的差异和数据不足,我们对IOP和VF的证据有限且混杂。多方面的干预可能不会导致IOP或VF的改善。没有纳入的研究报告其他预先规定的结果测量。只有五项纳入的研究报告了健康的社会决定因素是否与坚持使用局部青光眼药物有关。研究涉及的社会决定因素包括种族、参与者的教育水平、婚姻状况、就业状况、收入水平、年龄、慢性病数量和卫生知识水平。这些特征对干预效果影响的证据参差不齐。作者的结论:基于本综述中发现的非常低和低确定性的证据,目前尚不清楚多方面的行为干预是否对高眼压或青光眼患者坚持使用局部降低眼压药物和眼压的患者有有益的影响。在大多数情况下,由于干预措施的多样性、不同的结果定义和研究报告的不一致,我们无法进行荟萃分析。未来的研究将受益于采用标准化的测量和报告方法来坚持服药和疾病稳定性的临床结果,同时考虑到社会决定因素。资助:Cochrane Eyes and Vision美国项目由美国国立卫生研究院国家眼科研究所拨款UG1EY020522支持。注册:协议可通过doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD015788获得。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.60
自引率
2.40%
发文量
173
审稿时长
1-2 weeks
期刊介绍: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) stands as the premier database for systematic reviews in healthcare. It comprises Cochrane Reviews, along with protocols for these reviews, editorials, and supplements. Owned and operated by Cochrane, a worldwide independent network of healthcare stakeholders, the CDSR (ISSN 1469-493X) encompasses a broad spectrum of health-related topics, including health services.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信