Medication Adherence During Adjunct Therapy With Statins and ACE Inhibitors in Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Suboptimal adherence to insulin treatment is a main issue in adolescents with type 1 diabetes. However, to date, there are no available data on adherence to adjunct noninsulin medications in this population. Our aim was to assess adherence to ACE inhibitors and statins and explore potential determinants in adolescents with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS There were 443 adolescents with type 1 diabetes recruited into the Adolescent Type 1 Diabetes Cardio-Renal Intervention Trial (AdDIT) and exposed to treatment with two oral drugs—an ACE inhibitor and a statin—as well as combinations of both or placebo for 2–4 years. Adherence was assessed every 3 months with the Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS) and pill count. RESULTS Median adherence during the trial was 80.2% (interquartile range 63.6–91.8) based on MEMS and 85.7% (72.4–92.9) for pill count. Adherence based on MEMS and pill count dropped from 92.9% and 96.3%, respectively, at the first visit to 76.3% and 79.0% at the end of the trial. The percentage of study participants with adherence ≥75% declined from 84% to 53%. A good correlation was found between adherence based on MEMS and pill count (r = 0.82, P < 0.001). Factors associated with adherence were age, glycemic control, and country. CONCLUSIONS We report an overall good adherence to ACE inhibitors and statins during a clinical trial, although there was a clear decline in adherence over time. Older age and suboptimal glycemic control at baseline predicted lower adherence during the trial, and, predictably, reduced adherence was more prevalent in subjects who subsequently dropped out.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".