Cited by 58Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Adherence adjustment in the Coronary Drug Project: A call for better per-protocol effect estimates in randomized trials

Open access
Murray, Eleanor J, Hernán, Miguel A·2016·Clinical Trials

Abstract

Background: In many randomized controlled trials, patients and doctors are more interested in the per-protocol effect than in the intention-to-treat effect. However, valid estimation of the per-protocol effect generally requires adjustment for prognostic factors associated with adherence. These adherence adjustments have been strongly questioned in the clinical trials community, especially after 1980 when the Coronary Drug Project team found that adherers to placebo had lower 5-year mortality than non-adherers to placebo. Methods: We replicated the original Coronary Drug Project findings from 1980 and re-analyzed the Coronary Drug Project data using technical and conceptual developments that have become established since 1980. Specifically, we used logistic models for binary outcomes, decoupled the definition of adherence from loss to follow-up, and adjusted for pre-randomization covariates via standardization and for post-randomization covariates via inverse probability weighting. Results: The original Coronary Drug Project analysis reported a difference in 5-year mortality between adherers and non-adherers in the placebo arm of 9.4 percentage points. Using modern approaches, we found that this difference was reduced to 2.5 (95% confidence interval: −2.1 to 7.0). Conclusion: Valid estimation of per-protocol effects may be possible in randomized clinical trials when analysts use appropriate methods to adjust for post-randomization variables.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1740774516634335

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Data from a randomised trial can be used to derive an unbiased estimate of the effect of adhering to intervention.

    “Data from a randomised trial can be used to derive an unbiased estimate of the effect of adhering to intervention. 19 20”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [1]Coronary Drug Project Research Group 1975 Clofibrate and niacin in coronary heart disease JAMA 231 4 360 81 1088963
  2. [4]Robins JM Finkelstein DM 2000 Correcting for noncompliance and dependent censoring in an AIDS Clinical Trial with inverse probability of censoring weighted (IPCW) log-rank tests Biometrics 56 3 779 88 10985216

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Murray, E. J., & Hernán, M. A.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Departments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
Corresponding author
Murray, Eleanor J
Venue
Clinical Trials
Published
2016-03-07
Volume
13
Issue
4
Pages
372-378
ISSN
  • 1740-7745 (ISSN-L)
  • 1740-7753
OpenAlex
W2295342558
Cited by
57
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3
FWCI
5.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Trials (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL080644)
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R01AI102634)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
medication adherence, Coronary Drug Project, loss to follow-up, inverse probability weighting, standardization, intention-to-treat effect, 5-year mortality, replication
MeSH terms
Coronary Disease, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Male, Risk, Logistic Models, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Medication Adherence, Intention to Treat Analysis

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