Medication adherence assessment in a clinical trial with centralized follow-up and direct-to-patient drug shipments.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of adherence to study medications is a common challenge in clinical research. Counting unused study medication is the predominant method by which adherence is assessed in outpatient clinical trials but it has limitations that include questionable validity and burdens on research personnel. PURPOSE: To compare capsule counts, patient questionnaire responses, and plasma drug levels as methods of determining adherence in a clinical trial that had 2056 participants and used centralized drug distribution and patient follow-up. METHODS: Capsule counts from study medication bottles returned by participants and responses to questions regarding adherence during quarterly telephone interviews were averaged and compared. Both measures were compared to plasma drug levels obtained at the 3-month study visit of patients in the treatment group. Counts and questionnaire responses were converted to adherence rates (doses taken divided by days elapsed) and were categorized by stringent (≥85.7%) and liberal (≥71.4%) definitions. We calculated the prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa to assess agreement between the two measures. RESULTS: Using a pre-paid mailer, participants returned 76.0% of study medication bottles to the central pharmacy. Both capsule counts and questionnaire responses were available for 65.8% of participants and were used to assess adherence. Capsule counts identified more patients who were under-adherent (18.8% by the stringent definition and 7.5% by the liberal definition) than self-reports did (10.4% by the stringent definition and 2.1% by the liberal definition). The prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa was 0.58 (stringent) and 0.83 (liberal), indicating fair and very good agreement, respectively. Both measures were also in agreement with plasma drug levels determined at the 3-month visit (capsule counts: p = 0.005 for the stringent and p = 0.003 for the liberal definition; questionnaire: p = 0.002 for both adherence definitions). LIMITATIONS: Inconsistent bottle returns and incomplete notations of medication start and stop dates resulted in missing data but exploratory missing data analyses showed no reason to believe that the missing data resulted in systematic bias. CONCLUSIONS: Depending upon the definition of adherence, there was fair to very good agreement between questionnaire results and capsule counts among returned study bottles, confirmed by plasma drug levels. We conclude that a self-report of medication adherence is potentially comparable to capsule counts as a method of assessing adherence in a clinical trial, if a relatively low adherence threshold is acceptable, but adherence should be confirmed by other measures if a high adherence threshold is required.

An economic analysis of robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Stroke is a leading cause of disability. Rehabilitation robotics have been developed to aid in recovery after a stroke. This study determined the additional cost of robot-assisted therapy and tested its cost-effectiveness. METHODS: We estimated the intervention costs and tracked participants' healthcare costs. We collected quality of life using the Stroke Impact Scale and the Health Utilities Index. We analyzed the cost data at 36 weeks postrandomization using multivariate regression models controlling for site, presence of a prior stroke, and Veterans Affairs costs in the year before randomization. RESULTS: A total of 127 participants were randomized to usual care plus robot therapy (n=49), usual care plus intensive comparison therapy (n=50), or usual care alone (n=28). The average cost of delivering robot therapy and intensive comparison therapy was $5152 and $7382, respectively (P<0.001), and both were significantly more expensive than usual care alone (no additional intervention costs). At 36 weeks postrandomization, the total costs were comparable for the 3 groups ($17 831 for robot therapy, $19 746 for intensive comparison therapy, and $19 098 for usual care). Changes in quality of life were modest and not statistically different. CONCLUSIONS: The added cost of delivering robot or intensive comparison therapy was recuperated by lower healthcare use costs compared with those in the usual care group. However, uncertainty remains about the cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted rehabilitation compared with traditional rehabilitation. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00372411.

Robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke.

BACKGROUND: Effective rehabilitative therapies are needed for patients with long-term deficits after stroke. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving 127 patients with moderate-to-severe upper-limb impairment 6 months or more after a stroke, we randomly assigned 49 patients to receive intensive robot-assisted therapy, 50 to receive intensive comparison therapy, and 28 to receive usual care. Therapy consisted of 36 1-hour sessions over a period of 12 weeks. The primary outcome was a change in motor function, as measured on the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Sensorimotor Recovery after Stroke, at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes were scores on the Wolf Motor Function Test and the Stroke Impact Scale. Secondary analyses assessed the treatment effect at 36 weeks. RESULTS: At 12 weeks, the mean Fugl-Meyer score for patients receiving robot-assisted therapy was better than that for patients receiving usual care (difference, 2.17 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.23 to 4.58) and worse than that for patients receiving intensive comparison therapy (difference, -0.14 points; 95% CI, -2.94 to 2.65), but the differences were not significant. The results on the Stroke Impact Scale were significantly better for patients receiving robot-assisted therapy than for those receiving usual care (difference, 7.64 points; 95% CI, 2.03 to 13.24). No other treatment comparisons were significant at 12 weeks. Secondary analyses showed that at 36 weeks, robot-assisted therapy significantly improved the Fugl-Meyer score (difference, 2.88 points; 95% CI, 0.57 to 5.18) and the time on the Wolf Motor Function Test (difference, -8.10 seconds; 95% CI, -13.61 to -2.60) as compared with usual care but not with intensive therapy. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with long-term upper-limb deficits after stroke, robot-assisted therapy did not significantly improve motor function at 12 weeks, as compared with usual care or intensive therapy. In secondary analyses, robot-assisted therapy improved outcomes over 36 weeks as compared with usual care but not with intensive therapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00372411.)

Consumer involvement in consent document development: a multicenter cluster randomized trial to assess study participants' understanding.

BACKGROUND: Despite widespread agreement on the importance of informed consent in clinical research, uncertainty remains about the adequacy of current consent procedures and documentation. METHODS: The objective of the study was to compare an informed consent document developed by a consumer group of potential study participants to one developed by the study investigators. The study was a cluster randomized, controlled study embedded in a 'parent' randomized controlled trial of 1092 participants with Gulf War veterans' illnesses recruited in 1999-2000 at 20 US medical centers. Centers were randomized to the investigator-developed or participant-developed consent document. The primary outcome measure was an Informed Consent Questionnaire-4 (ICQ-4), a validated four-item scale measuring self-reported participant understanding scored from 0 to 1. Secondary outcomes included the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8 and measures of study refusal and adherence to the parent trial protocol. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between consent documents on the ICQ-4 score overall or at any of the time points. Mean (95% CI) treatment differences ranged from +0.020 (-0.015, 0.055) (better understanding) at entry to -0.021 (-0.054, 0.012) (worse understanding) at three-months for the participant versus the investigator document group. There were also no significant differences in satisfaction, adherence to the protocol, or in the proportion of patients who refused to participate in the trial. LIMITATIONS: The consumer group may not have been representative of the study participants and they did not suggest dramatic changes to the consent document. The outcome assessment questionnaire was not validated prior to the trial's initiation. CONCLUSIONS: Consumer modification of the consent document did not lead to either benefit or harm in understanding, satisfaction, or study refusal and adherence rates. This study did demonstrate, however, that embedding consent studies in a clinical trial is feasible and can address important questions about informed consent without disrupting the primary study.