Pill count measures of compliance in a drug trial: Variability and suitability

American Journal of Hypertension

Volumn 1, Issue 3, 1988, Pages 309-312

  Rudd, Peter ^a   Byyny, Richard L ^c   Zachary, Valérie ^a   Loverde, Mary E ^c   Mitchell, Wayne D ^c   Titus, Chris ^a   Marshall, Gary ^b  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b VA PALO ALTO HEALTH CARE SYSTEM   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

Antihypertensive m dication; Clinical trial; Compliance; Hypertension; Measures

Indexed keywords

ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AGENT; HYDRALAZINE; HYDROCHLOROTHIAZIDE; PINACIDIL; PROPRANOLOL;

CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; DIAGNOSIS; DRUG THERAPY; HUMAN; HYPERTENSION; METHODOLOGY; NORMAL HUMAN; PATIENT COMPLIANCE;

ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AGENTS; CLINICAL TRIALS; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMAN; HYPERTENSION; MALE; MIDDLE AGE; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PRESCRIPTIONS, DRUG; STATISTICS; SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T; TABLETS;

EID: 0023913650     PISSN: 08957061     EISSN: 19417225     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ajh/1.3.309     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Muiesan G, Fariello R, Muiesan ML, Christensen OE: Effect of pinacidil on blood pressure, plasma catechol- amines and plasma renin activity in essential hypertension. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1985;28:495-9
2. Carlsen JE, Kardel T, Lund JG, et al: Acute hémodynamie effects of pinacidil and hydralazine in essential hypertension. Clin Pharm Therap 1985;37:253-9
3. Byyny RL, Nies AS, LoVerde ME, Mitchell WD: A dou- ble-blind, randomized, controlled trial comparing pinacidil to hydralazine in essential hypertension. Clin Pharm Therap 1987;42:50-7
4. Goldsmith CH: The effect of compliance distributions on therapeutic trials. In: Haynes RB, Taylor DW, Sackett DL (eds): Compliance in Health Care Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, pp 297-308
5. Feinstein AR: "Compliance bias" and the interprétation of therapeutic trials. In: Haynes RB, Taylor DW, Sackett DL (eds): Compliance in Health Care. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, pp 309-22
6. Palta M, McHugh R: Planning the size of a cohort study in the presence of both losses to follow-up and non-compliance. J Chron Dis 1980;33:501-12
7. Soutter BR, Kennedy MC: Patient compliance assess- ment in drug trials: usage and methods. Aust NZ J Med 1974;4:360-4
8. Wandless I, Mucklow JC, Smith A, Prudham D: Compliance with prescribed medicines: a study of elderly patients in the community. J Roy Coll Gen Practit 1979;29:391-6
9. Rudd P: In search of the gold standard for compliance measurement [ed]. Arch Intern Med 1979;139:627-8
10. Rudd P, Marshall G: Resolving problems of measuring compliance with médication monitors. J Compliance Health Care 1987;2:23-35
11. Dirks JF, Kinsman RA: Nondichotomous patterns of médication usage: the yes-no fallacy. Clin Pharm Therap 1982;31:413-7
12. Spector SL, Kinsman R, Mawhinney H, Siegel SC, Ra- chelefsky GS, Katz RM, Rohr AS: Compliance of patients with asthma with an experimental aerosolized médication: implications for controlled clinical trials. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1986;77:65-70
13. Kass MA, Meltzer DW, Gordon M, Cooper D, Goldberg J: Compliance with topical pilocarpine treatment. Am J Ophthal 1986;101:515-23
14. Kass MA, Gordon M, Meltzer DW: Can ophthalmolo- gists correctly identify patients defaulting from pilocarpine therapy? Am J Ophthal 1986;101:524-30
15. Gordis L: General concepts for use of markers in clinical trials. Controlled Clin Trials 1984;5:481-7