Background Rilpivirine is a recently authorised antiretroviral. Adherence is essential in this kind of drug.

Purpose To evaluate treatment adherence with rilpivirine/emtricitabine/tenofovir (RPV/FTC/TDF) using the SMAQ questionnaire and pharmacy dispensing records (FDR) and the correlation between these in HIV/AIDS mono-infected patients.

Material and methods Prospective observational study. We included patients treated with RPV/FTC/TDF from September 2013 until September 2014 with adherence data available of at least 3 months. Demographics data and reason for treatment were collected.

Adherence was calculated across the SMAQ questionnaire (qualitative and semi-quantitative) and FRD, considering the patient adherent when any of these parameters was ≥95%. The correlation between the methods was assessed using the kappa (k) index.

Results 33 patients started treatment with RPV/FTC/TDF during the above-mentioned period. 21 were included in the study. 71% were men (average age: 40 ± 10 years). 38% were treatment-naïve and the rest were changes of therapeutic strategy (33% adverse reactions and 29% simplification of treatment strategies).

26% of patients were considered adherent from a qualitative point of view in the SMAQ questionnaire, 76% from a semi-quantitative perspective and 95% via the FRD. The results between the three analysis only coincided in 6 patients.

As for the results of k index, we observed the following strength of agreement: fair between the SMAQ quantitative and qualitative questionnaires (k = 0.22) and slight between the SMAQ qualitative questionnaire and FRD (k = 0.04) and between semi-quantitative SMAQ and FRD questionnaire (k = 0.01).

Conclusion Our study highlights a low adherence to treatment obtained with the SMAQ questionnaire (both qualitative and semi-quantitative). It may be due to both the inflexibility of the questions and because of the patient assessment. These results could be improved through a pharmacist intervention in the monthly clinical review.

Correlation between the three methods was low, so their use in isolation may give erroneous results in predicting adherence. However, with this way, “hidden” non-adherent patients (adherent FRD and non-adherent SMAQ) and “masked” non-adherent patients (non-adherent FRD and adherent SMAQ) could be detected.

References and/or acknowledgements No conflict of interest.