Electronic monitoring of treatment adherence and validation of alternative adherence measures in tuberculosis patients: a pilot study
Jossy van den Boogaard, Ramsey A Lyimo, Martin J Boeree, Gibson S Kibiki & Rob E Aarnoutse
Volume 89, Number 9, September 2011, 632-639
Table 2. Median monitored treatment days and adherence rates, and proportions of patients who were less than 100%, 95% and 80% adherent,a as assessed by the Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS), United Republic of Tanzania, 2010
| Patientsa | Monitored days |
Adherence rate (%) |
< 100% adherent |
< 95% adherent |
< 80% adherent |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median (IQR)b | Median (IQR)b | No. (%) | No. (%) | No. (%) | |
| All (47) | 168 (138–172) | 98.4 (95.7–100) | 33 (70) | 10 (21) | 1 (2) |
| Completed treatment (37) | 169 (168–180.5) | 98.4 (95.7–100) | 27 (73) | 7 (19) | 0 (0) |
| Defaulters (2) | 40.0/113c | 50.0/100d | 1 (50) | 1 (50) | 1 (50) |
| Deaths (4) | 63 (29.5–104) | 98.4 (95.6–99.6) | 3 (75) | 1 (25) | 0 (0) |
| Study drop outs (4) | 33 (21–73) | 98.3 (88.4–100) | 2 (50) | 1 (25) | 0 (0) |
IQR, interquartile range.
a Only patients for whom MEMS data were available are included.
b All values given are medians and IQRs except for the values of the two defaulters.
c Number of monitored days for defaulter 1 and defaulter 2, respectively.
d Adherence rates of defaulter 1 and defaulter 2, respectively.