BACKGROUND: Poor adherence to medications is a major cause of morbidity and inadequate drug effectiveness. Efforts to improve adherence have typically been either ineffective or too complex to implement in clinical practice. Lottery-based incentive interventions could be a scalable approach to improving adherence. METHODS: This was a randomized, controlled clinical trial of a daily lottery-based incentive in patients on warfarin stratified by baseline international normalized ratio (INR). The trial randomized 100 patients to either alottery-based incentive or no lottery intervention. Main outcome was out-of-range INRs. RESULTS: Over 6 months, the overall percentage of out-of-range INRs did not differ between the 2 arms (mean 23.0% in lottery arm and 25.9% in control arm, adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.93, 95% CI 0.62-1.41). However, among the a priori subgroup with a baseline INR below therapeutic range, there was a significant reduction in out-of-range INR in the lottery arm versus the control arm (adjusted OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.25-0.62), whereas there was no such effect among those with therapeutic INRs at baseline (adjusted OR 1.26, 95% CI, 0.76-2.09, P value for interaction = .0016). Among those with low INR at baseline, there was a nonsignificant 49% reduction in the odds of nonadherence with the intervention (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.23-1.14). CONCLUSIONS: Although a lottery-based intervention was not associated with a significant improvement in anticoagulation control among all study participants, it improved control among an a priori group of patients at higher risk for poor adherence.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Poor adherence to medications is a major cause of morbidity and inadequate drug effectiveness. Efforts to improve adherence have typically been either ineffective or too complex to implement in clinical practice. Lottery-based incentive interventions could be a scalable approach to improving adherence. METHODS: This was a randomized, controlled clinical trial of a daily lottery-based incentive in patients on warfarin stratified by baseline international normalized ratio (INR). The trial randomized 100 patients to either a lottery-based incentive or no lottery intervention. Main outcome was out-of-range INRs. RESULTS: Over 6 months, the overall percentage of out-of-range INRs did not differ between the 2 arms (mean 23.0% in lottery arm and 25.9% in control arm, adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.93, 95% CI 0.62-1.41). However, among the a priori subgroup with a baseline INR below therapeutic range, there was a significant reduction in out-of-range INR in the lottery arm versus the control arm (adjusted OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.25-0.62), whereas there was no such effect among those with therapeutic INRs at baseline (adjusted OR 1.26, 95% CI, 0.76-2.09, P value for interaction = .0016). Among those with low INR at baseline, there was a nonsignificant 49% reduction in the odds of nonadherence with the intervention (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.23-1.14). CONCLUSIONS: Although a lottery-based intervention was not associated with a significant improvement in anticoagulation control among all study participants, it improved control among an a priori group of patients at higher risk for poor adherence.
Authors: Stephen E Kimmel; Zhen Chen; Maureen Price; Catherine S Parker; Joshua P Metlay; Jason D Christie; Colleen M Brensinger; Craig W Newcomb; Frederick F Samaha; Robert Gross Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2007-02-12
Authors: Alec B Platt; A Russell Localio; Colleen M Brensinger; Dean G Cruess; Jason D Christie; Robert Gross; Catherine S Parker; Maureen Price; Joshua P Metlay; Abigail Cohen; Craig W Newcomb; Brian L Strom; Mitchell S Laskin; Stephen E Kimmel Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Seth W Glickman; Fang-Shu Ou; Elizabeth R DeLong; Matthew T Roe; Barbara L Lytle; Jyotsna Mulgund; John S Rumsfeld; W Brian Gibler; E Magnus Ohman; Kevin A Schulman; Eric D Peterson Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-06-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Catherine S Parker; Zhen Chen; Maureen Price; Robert Gross; Joshua P Metlay; Jason D Christie; Colleen M Brensinger; Craig W Newcomb; Frederick F Samaha; Stephen E Kimmel Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2007-06-22 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Kevin G Volpp; Leslie K John; Andrea B Troxel; Laurie Norton; Jennifer Fassbender; George Loewenstein Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-12-10 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Kevin G Volpp; George Loewenstein; Andrea B Troxel; Jalpa Doshi; Maureen Price; Mitchell Laskin; Stephen E Kimmel Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2008-12-23 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Eric D Peterson; P Michael Ho; Mary Barton; Craig Beam; L Hayley Burgess; Donald E Casey; Joseph P Drozda; Gregg C Fonarow; David Goff; Kathleen L Grady; Dana E King; Marjorie L King; Frederick A Masoudi; David R Nielsen; Stephen Stanko Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-11-03 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Maxine L Stitzer; Alexis S Hammond; Tim Matheson; James L Sorensen; Daniel J Feaster; Rui Duan; Lauren Gooden; Carlos Del Rio; Lisa R Metsch Journal: AIDS Patient Care STDS Date: 2018-06-08 Impact factor: 5.078
Authors: Karen E Joynt Maddox; Aditi P Sen; Lok Wong Samson; Rachael B Zuckerman; Nancy DeLew; Arnold M Epstein Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2017-07-17 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Aditi P Sen; Taylor B Sewell; E Brooks Riley; Beth Stearman; Scarlett L Bellamy; Michelle F Hu; Yuanyuan Tao; Jingsan Zhu; James D Park; George Loewenstein; David A Asch; Kevin G Volpp Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2014-02-13 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Judd B Kessler; Andrea B Troxel; David A Asch; Shivan J Mehta; Noora Marcus; Raymond Lim; Jingsan Zhu; William Shrank; Troyen Brennan; Kevin G Volpp Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-03-15 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Daniel M Witt; Robby Nieuwlaat; Nathan P Clark; Jack Ansell; Anne Holbrook; Jane Skov; Nadine Shehab; Juliet Mock; Tarra Myers; Francesco Dentali; Mark A Crowther; Arnav Agarwal; Meha Bhatt; Rasha Khatib; John J Riva; Yuan Zhang; Gordon Guyatt Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2018-11-27