Solid organ transplantation: are there predictors for posttransplant noncompliance? A literature overview

BACKGROUND: Many studies confirm that noncompliance or poor compliance is one of the great problems in health care as it results in waste of resources and funds. METHODS: This overview includes literature on heart, liver, and kidney transplants with emphasis on heart transplantation in adult and pediatric transplant patients and addresses the following variables as potential predictors of postoperative compliance problems: demographic variables (age, marital status, gender) psychological variables (anxiety, denial) psychiatric disorders (major depression, anxiety, and personality disorders), poor social support, pretransplant noncompliance, obesity, substance abuse, and health-related variables (distance from transplant center, indication for transplantation, required pretransplant assist device). Relevant studies on these topics that were conducted up to 1999 are included and discussed in this overview. The most important results are presented in tables. RESULTS: Unfortunately, there has not been any systematic and comprehensive review of the literature on predictors of noncompliance in organ transplant patients so far. With organ transplantation noncompliance impairs both life quality and life span as it is a major risk factor for graft rejection episodes and is responsible for up to 25% of deaths after the initial recovery period. Therefore, it might be assumed that well-informed transplant patients are a highly motivated group whose compliance is just as high. This is not the case. However, even when graft loss means loss of life as in heart or liver transplantation, noncompliance occurs. To best select potential organ recipients, it would be ideal if patients who are very likely to show noncompliant behavior could be identified already before being transplanted. CONCLUSION: The literature overview shows the necessity of preoperative psychosocial screening regarding predictors for posttransplant noncompliance.

[Noncompliance in organ transplantation: a review]

The effectiveness of medical treatment depends not only on the appropriateness of the treatment modality but also on the patient's compliance with the intended regimen. The consequences of failing to comply can be damaging and devastating for the individual patient and his/her family. Noncompliance also leads to waste in two areas: first, a reduction of the potential benefits of therapy, and second, the additional cost of treating the avoidable consequent morbidity. A dramatic example of the consequences of noncompliance with the treatment regimen concerns patients who have had organ transplants: life-long immunosuppression is a pre-requisite for good graft function, and noncompliance is often associated with the occurrence of late acute rejection episodes, graft loss, and death. Here it might be assumed that these patients constitute a highly motivated group, and that compliance would be high. Unfortunately, this is not the case: overall noncompliance rates vary from 20 to 50%. There is no systematic and comprehensive review of the literature on noncompliance and its consequences in organ transplant patients to date. This overview includes literature on heart, liver and kidney transplants in adult and paediatric transplant patients and addresses the following issues: preoperative behaviour patterns as predictors of postoperative compliance problems, compliance behaviour after transplantation, noncompliance and its relationship to organ loss and death, retransplantation outcome after graft loss due to noncompliance, reasons for postoperative noncompliance, and ways to promote compliance.

Comparison of oral antiviral therapy with valacyclovir or acyclovir after penetrating keratoplasty for herpetic keratitis

AIMS: To compare the outcome of prophylactic oral valacyclovir (VAL) or oral acyclovir treatment (ACV) in patients having undergone penetrating keratoplasty for herpetic keratitis (HK). METHODS: All patients having received a penetrating keratoplasty for HK and being treated postoperatively with either oral VAL or oral ACV (inclusion period from 12/97 to 3/06 and 5/92 to 9/96, respectively) were retrospectively evaluated. Records were analysed for postoperative reactivation of recurrent HK, graft rejection, endothelial cell loss, central corneal thickness and visual acuity after a follow-up of up to 5 years. RESULTS: Twenty patients received VAL and were compared with 19 patients being treated with ACV. Two patients developed clinical signs of recurrent herpetic disease in the VAL group compared with three patients in the ACV group. Two patients from both groups each developed an irreversible graft failure. Best corrected visual acuity improved in both treatment groups from baseline (logMAR) -1.97 (VAL), -1.47 (ACV) to -0.85, -0.72, respectively, at the 1-year follow-up and slightly deteriorated after 5 years in the ACV group (-0.71 VAL vs -1.14 ACV). CONCLUSION: Prophylactic oral VAL treatment is at least as effective as ACV in preventing recurrence in patients who underwent corneal transplantation for HK. The tolerability of the two drugs is similar, but the dosing for VAL might be more comfortable for patients.