Association of study visit interval length with follow-up completeness and adherence to assigned study drug dose: A randomized comparison of participants in the ADAPTABLE trial.
Dennis I Narcisse, Jeff Whittle, Grace M Rhodes, Amanda L Stebbins, Lisa M Wruck, Hillary Mulder, Sunil Kripalani, Daniel Muñoz, Mark B Effron, Kamal Gupta, Eileen M Handberg, Saket Girotra, Rachel Hess, Catherine P Benziger, Peter Farrehi, Jeffrey J VanWormer, Kirk U Knowlton, Tamar S Polonsky, Steven M Bradley, Holly R Robertson, Bradley G Hammill, Russell L Rothman, Robert A Harrington, W Schuyler Jones, Adrian F Hernandez
{"title":"Association of study visit interval length with follow-up completeness and adherence to assigned study drug dose: A randomized comparison of participants in the ADAPTABLE trial.","authors":"Dennis I Narcisse, Jeff Whittle, Grace M Rhodes, Amanda L Stebbins, Lisa M Wruck, Hillary Mulder, Sunil Kripalani, Daniel Muñoz, Mark B Effron, Kamal Gupta, Eileen M Handberg, Saket Girotra, Rachel Hess, Catherine P Benziger, Peter Farrehi, Jeffrey J VanWormer, Kirk U Knowlton, Tamar S Polonsky, Steven M Bradley, Holly R Robertson, Bradley G Hammill, Russell L Rothman, Robert A Harrington, W Schuyler Jones, Adrian F Hernandez","doi":"10.1016/j.cct.2025.108030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Little is known of the frequency of follow-up visits impact on completion of scheduled study visits, adherence to randomized treatment assignment, and completion of the study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In ADAPTABLE, participants with ASCVD were randomized to 81 mg or 325 mg of aspirin and to follow-up at 3- or 6-month intervals. At follow-up, participants answered questions about aspirin dose, adherence, and outcome measures via internet patient portal or telephone. Differences in visit adherence and study completion were compared using logistic regression. Proportional hazard models were used to compare time to study drop out, stopping aspirin, or changing aspirin dose between the 3-and 6-month groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>When compared with 6-month follow-up, participants assigned to 3-month follow-up were less likely to attend any study visit (OR 0.69, 95 % CI 0.65-0.73), but 3-month follow-up had more total visits (8 vs 5, p < 0.0001). The likelihood of completing the end-of-study visit were similar (OR 0.94, 95 % CI 0.87-1.03). Assignment to 3- vs 6-month follow-up was not associated with rates of aspirin dose switching (HR 1.02, 95 % CI = 0.94-1.09), aspirin discontinuation (HR 1.00, 95 % CI 0.88-1.14), or study drop out (HR 0.95, 95 % CI 0.88-1.03).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>More frequent study visits led to higher total visits but lower visit adherence. There were no significant differences in visit and medication adherence between 3 v. 6 months follow up. As we continue to refine approaches to designing pragmatic clinical trials, more work is needed to understand the factors that may impact adherence to randomized assignments.</p><p><strong>Clinicaltrials: </strong>govIdentifier:NCT02697916.</p>","PeriodicalId":10636,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary clinical trials","volume":" ","pages":"108030"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary clinical trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2025.108030","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Little is known of the frequency of follow-up visits impact on completion of scheduled study visits, adherence to randomized treatment assignment, and completion of the study.
Methods: In ADAPTABLE, participants with ASCVD were randomized to 81 mg or 325 mg of aspirin and to follow-up at 3- or 6-month intervals. At follow-up, participants answered questions about aspirin dose, adherence, and outcome measures via internet patient portal or telephone. Differences in visit adherence and study completion were compared using logistic regression. Proportional hazard models were used to compare time to study drop out, stopping aspirin, or changing aspirin dose between the 3-and 6-month groups.
Results: When compared with 6-month follow-up, participants assigned to 3-month follow-up were less likely to attend any study visit (OR 0.69, 95 % CI 0.65-0.73), but 3-month follow-up had more total visits (8 vs 5, p < 0.0001). The likelihood of completing the end-of-study visit were similar (OR 0.94, 95 % CI 0.87-1.03). Assignment to 3- vs 6-month follow-up was not associated with rates of aspirin dose switching (HR 1.02, 95 % CI = 0.94-1.09), aspirin discontinuation (HR 1.00, 95 % CI 0.88-1.14), or study drop out (HR 0.95, 95 % CI 0.88-1.03).
Conclusions: More frequent study visits led to higher total visits but lower visit adherence. There were no significant differences in visit and medication adherence between 3 v. 6 months follow up. As we continue to refine approaches to designing pragmatic clinical trials, more work is needed to understand the factors that may impact adherence to randomized assignments.
背景:很少有人知道随访频率对计划研究访问的完成、依从性随机治疗分配和研究完成的影响。方法:在adaptive试验中,ASCVD患者随机接受81 mg或325 mg阿司匹林治疗,并每隔3或6个月进行随访。在随访中,参与者通过互联网患者门户网站或电话回答有关阿司匹林剂量、依从性和结果测量的问题。使用逻辑回归比较访问依从性和研究完成度的差异。比例风险模型用于比较3个月组和6个月组之间研究退出、停用阿司匹林或改变阿司匹林剂量的时间。结果:与6个月的随访相比,被分配到3个月随访的参与者参加任何研究访问的可能性较小(OR 0.69, 95 % CI 0.65-0.73),但3个月随访的总访问次数更多(8 vs 5, p )。结论:更频繁的研究访问导致总访问次数增加,但访问依从性降低。随访3个月和6个月,随访时间无显著性差异。随着我们不断完善设计实用临床试验的方法,需要做更多的工作来了解可能影响随机分配依从性的因素。临床试验:govIdentifier: NCT02697916。
期刊介绍:
Contemporary Clinical Trials is an international peer reviewed journal that publishes manuscripts pertaining to all aspects of clinical trials, including, but not limited to, design, conduct, analysis, regulation and ethics. Manuscripts submitted should appeal to a readership drawn from disciplines including medicine, biostatistics, epidemiology, computer science, management science, behavioural science, pharmaceutical science, and bioethics. Full-length papers and short communications not exceeding 1,500 words, as well as systemic reviews of clinical trials and methodologies will be published. Perspectives/commentaries on current issues and the impact of clinical trials on the practice of medicine and health policy are also welcome.