Medication compliance feedback and monitoring in a clinical trial: predictors and outcomes
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Suboptimal compliance in randomized trials is well known to cause negative results.
“Suboptimal compliance in randomized trials is well known to cause negative results(97–101).”
From Metformin, the Aspirin of the 21st Century: Its Role in Gestational Diabetes Mellitus, Prevention of Preeclampsia and Cancer, and the Promotion of Longevity (2017) · cites this paper as [99]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 28 · Cited by 212
- Authors
- Cramer, J., Rosenheck, R., Kirk, G., Krol, W., & Krystal, J.
- Affiliations
- Yale University (US)
- United States Department of Veterans Affairs (US)
- Venue
- Value in Health
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2003-09
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 566-573
- ISSN
- 1098-3015 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2093686101
- Cited by
- 212
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 3.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Value in Health (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
- Keywords
- medication adherence, medication event monitoring system, naltrexone, alcoholism, alcohol use outcomes, predictors of compliance, internal validity, veterans
- MeSH terms
- Alcoholism, Double-Blind Method, Feedback, Female, Hospitals, Veterans, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Naltrexone, Narcotic Antagonists, Patient Compliance, Placebos, Self Administration, United States, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Reproducibility of Results, Treatment Outcome, Reminder Systems
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review