Cofield, Stacey S.

Abstract BACKGROUND Adherence to study medications is crucial to evaluating treatment effects in clinical trials. To assess whether in the SPRINT trial, adherence and cardiovascular outcomes are associated regardless of intervention assignment. METHODS This study included 9,361 participants aged ≥50 years, recruited from 102 clinics. Participants were randomized to a Standard Treatment Group (targeted systolic blood pressure [SBP] <140 mm Hg) or an Intensive Treatment Group (targeted SBP <120 mm Hg) and followed for incident cardiovascular events until the study was halted early for benefit. The 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8) was administered at baseline, and at the 12- and 48-month (or close out) visit. RESULTS Adjusting for covariates, there was no association between the baseline 8-item MMAS-8 and the likelihood of the primary composite endpoint, any of the secondary endpoints, or blood pressure (BP) control. Low adherence was associated with a higher body mass index, SBP, diastolic BP, and Patient Health Questionnaire, and high adherence was associated with a higher Montreal Cognitive Assessment. There was no difference in the MMAS-8 over time by treatment arm assignment. For the primary outcome (a composite of myocardial infarction, other acute coronary syndromes, stroke, heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes), baseline odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for the Low vs. Medium and vs. High; and, for Medium vs. High MMAS-8 were 1.02 (0.82–1.28), 1.07 (0.85–1.34), and 1.05 (0.88–1.250). CONCLUSIONS In SPRINT, medication adherence as measured using the MMAS-8 was not associated with outcomes or BP control.

ObjectiveThe Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 3×3 method analyzes the occurrence of benefit and harm simultaneously at the individual patient level. We applied this method to 2 recent rheumatoid arthritis (RA) trial data sets.MethodsThe Treatment of Early Aggressive Rheumatoid Arthritis (TEAR) and the Rheumatoid Arthritis Comparison of Active Therapies (RACAT) randomized trial outcomes for safety were defined according to OMERACT as having no adverse events (AEs), non‐serious AEs, and serious AEs. Treatment efficacy was defined as good, moderate, or no response. A good treatment response without any AEs was labeled an unqualified success, and no treatment response but at least 1 AE was considered an unmitigated failure. The association between benefit and harm was assessed by chi‐square or exact tests, as appropriate.ResultsIn TEAR, 612 of 755 patients had response data at 48 weeks: 14% of patients experienced unqualified success and 9% had unmitigated failure, with no difference between the treatment arms. Treatment response and AE rates were not correlated. In RACAT, 309 of 353 patients had response data at 48 weeks: 6% of patients experienced unqualified success and 11% had unmitigated failure, with no differences between the treatment arms. Response and AE rates were negatively correlated. The frequency of AEs and serious AEs increased as response decreased (P = 0.008).ConclusionWe found some evidence that clinical response may be reduced by the co‐occurrence of AEs.