4.6 Article

Medication compliance feedback and monitoring in a clinical trial: Predictors and outcomes

期刊

VALUE IN HEALTH
卷 6, 期 5, 页码 566-573

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1046/j.1524-4733.2003.65269.x

关键词

alcoholism; clinical trial; compliance; medication; naltrexone

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The objective of this study was to demonstrate the utility of continuous monitoring and enhancement of medication compliance during a long-term clinical trial, predictors of compliance, and relationships to drinking outcomes. Methods: Alcohol-dependent patients enrolled in a multicenter VA cooperative study were randomly assigned to once-daily naltrexone (NTX) for 3 or 12 months (short-term or long-term NTX) or placebo for 12 months of treatment. All medications were dispensed in bottles with medication event monitoring (MEMS, AARDEX, Union City, CA) caps with a microprocessor that recorded openings as presumptive doses. Patients were trained to develop personal cues as dosing reminders. Monthly feedback sessions included review of compliance data and cues. Results: There were no significant differences among short-term NTX, long-term NTX, and placebo (209 each) groups in measures of compliance. Overall compliance rates were 71% +/- 31% of doses for the first 13 weeks and 43% +/- 33% of doses over 52 weeks. Some doses were taken during 83% +/- 27% of the first 13 weeks. Higher medication compliance predicted fewer drinks per drinking day (P = .02) throughout follow-up and a lower percentage of drinking days (P = .002 during the first 13 weeks) with no significant effect for treatment group. Conclusions: The feedback and monitoring programs were important features to demonstrate that lack of treatment effect was not a result of poor compliance. Medication compliance data supported the internal validity of the trial by demonstrating that good compliers had better outcomes, irrespective of treatment with NTX or placebo. The MEMS feedback methodology is feasible for use in multicenter trials.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据