Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35816103›Full record

ArticleClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2022

Medication Adherence Measurement Methods in Registration Trials Supporting the Approval of New Medicines: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Centralized Procedures in the European Union 2010-2020.

Katerina M Mantila, Anna M G Pasmooij, Christine Erikstrup Hallgreen, Peter G M Mol, Job F M van Boven

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Katerina M MantilaCopenhagen Centre for Regulatory Science, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-5433-874X
Anna M G PasmooijDutch Medicines Evaluation Board, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0641-3829
Christine Erikstrup HallgreenCopenhagen Centre for Regulatory Science, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-7916-3915
Peter G M MolDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy & Pharmacology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4262-3180
Job F M van BovenDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy & Pharmacology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2368-2262
University Medical Center Groningen · NLUniversity of Copenhagen · DKMedicines Evaluation Board · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Medication adherence is a key factor impacting efficacy and safety of medicines, yet how it is dealt with in European registration trials is unknown. A cross-sectional analysis of European Medicines Agency (EMA) marketing authorization dossiers for new medicines approved through centralized procedures in the European Union between 2010 and 2020 was performed. Data were extracted from European Public Assessment Reports and Clinical Study Reports. Clinical trials covering five therapeutic areas were included: diabetes, respiratory conditions, cardiovascular diseases, infectious diseases, and oncology. Outcomes included adherence assessment, measurement methods, and rates. Overall, 102 medicines studied in 253 clinical trials were reviewed. All but one study reported measuring adherence. Two hundred twenty trials (87%) measured adherence using quantitative methods, while 32 (13%) trials monitored adherence but did not further quantify. Reported adherence rates were high (> 90%) across trials yet marked disparities in measurement methods and definitions were found. The most frequently used adherence measurement method was pill/dose count (single method: 52.7%; in combination: 37.7%; with patient diary/report: 17.3%; electronic methods: 1.4%; bioanalytical methods: 4.1%). Patient diary/report (6.4%) and electronic methods (2.7%) were also used as single methods. Electronic methods were more often used in respiratory and anti-infective trials, while bioanalytical methods were more frequently used in diabetes. Overall, adherence is measured in EMA registration trials, yet the methods used and the way in which adherence rates are presented vary widely between trials and therapeutic areas. To better understand and compare efficacy of medicines, standardization of adherence definitions and measurement methods is needed.

Indexed as

Drug ApprovalMedical OncologyCross-Sectional StudiesEuropean UnionHumansMedication Adherence

Identifiers

PMID35816103
PMCPMC9795959
OpenAlexW4285018785

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.