One of these is enhancement of the accumulation of adherent microbes by inter-bacterial attachment; this could allow planktonic organisms to bind to the surface via previously attached enterococcal cells, or could lead to surface attachment of many cells from an aggregate formed in the liquid phase via a single adherence event to the host surface.
In this model, the censorship point adopted the midpoint of the previous observation and the current non-adherence events (the main model), as a non-adherent event was likely to have occurred before it was detected [ 40].
The association between these non-adherence events and clinical outcomes has remained equivocal.
The frequency of those two non-adherence events continues to surpass that in Europe and Japan [ 2, 3].
Compared with NHWs, these non-adherence events appear to be more common among AAs, Hispanics and NAs.
Neither of the two approaches was successful in detecting non-adherence when the sampling event took place 48 h after a period of non-adherence (event 2).
In all three scenarios, it was assumed that the patient was scheduled for an atazanavir plasma monitoring event before the scheduled dosing time at the day following a past period of non-adherence (event 1a), or on the second day after a non-adherence period (event 2).
In general, there were no differences between the scenarios; furthermore, the nomogram and the plasma concentration measurements were similar in their ability to predict non-adherence in patients in the ideal case when the patient is sampled directly after the period of non-adherence (event 1a).
When patients stopped using one or more DMARD on the rheumatologist's advice, for example in case of laboratory abnormalities, this was noted as a non-monitored period, which means that this period was not assigned as a non-adherence event.
For clinical outcomes, we extracted reported endpoints on dose adjustment, additional medication, adherence, adverse events, healthcare utilization, surrogate outcome parameters, and others.
