Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Adherence to Warfarin Assessed by Electronic Pill Caps, Clinician Assessment, and Patient Reports: Results from the IN-RANGE Study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Patient adherence to warfarin may influence anticoagulation control; yet, adherence among warfarin users has not been rigorously studied.

Objective

Our goal was to quantify warfarin adherence over time and to compare electronic medication event monitoring systems (MEMS) cap measurements with both self-report and clinician assessment of patient adherence.

Design

We performed a prospective cohort study of warfarin users at 3 Pennsylvania-based anticoagulation clinics and assessed pill-taking behaviors using MEMS caps, patient reports, and clinician assessments.

Results

Among 145 participants, the mean percent of days of nonadherence by MEMS was 21.8% (standard deviation±21.1%). Participants were about 6 times more likely to take too few pills than to take extra pills (18.8 vs. 3.3%). Adherence changed over time, initially worsening over the first 6 months of monitoring, which was followed by improvement beyond 6 months. Although clinicians were statistically better than chance at correctly labeling a participant’s adherence (odds ratio = 2.05, p = 0.015), their estimates often did not correlate with MEMS-cap data; clinicians judged participants to be “adherent” at 82.8% of visits that were categorized as moderately nonadherent using MEMS-cap data (≥20% nonadherence days). Similarly, at visits when participants were moderately nonadherent by MEMS, they self-reported perfect adherence 77.9% of the time.

Conclusions

These results suggest that patients may benefit from adherence counseling even when they claim to be taking their warfarin or the clinician feels they are doing so, particularly several months into their course of therapy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chiquette E, Amato MG, Bussey HI. Comparison of an anticoagulation clinic with usual medical care: anticoagulation control, patient outcomes, and health care costs. Arch Intern Med. 1998;158:1641–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Palareti G, Leali N, Coccheri S, et al. Bleeding complications of oral anticoagulant treatment: an inception-cohort, prospective collaborative study (ISCOAT). Italian Study on Complications of Oral Anticoagulant Therapy. Lancet. 1996;348:423–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kutner M, Nixon G, Silverstone F. Physicians’ attitudes toward oral anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents for stroke prevention in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation. Arch Intern Med. 1991;151:1950–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bush D, Tayback M. Anticoagulation for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: effects of type of practice on physicians’ self-reported behavior. Am J Med. 1998;104:148–51.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Osterberg L, Blaschke T. Adherence to medication. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:487–97.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kimmel SE, Chen Z, Price M, et al. The influence of patient adherence on anticoagulation control with warfarin: results from the International Normalized Ratio Adherence and Genetics (IN-RANGE) Study. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:229–35.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Howard AF, Frewin DB, Leonello PP, Taylor WB. Compliance with anticoagulant drug therapy: a study on patients with prosthetic heart valves. Med J Aust. 1981;2:274–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Van der Meer FJ, Briet E, Vandenbroucke JP, et al. The role of compliance as a cause of instability in oral anticoagulant therapy. Br J Haematol. 1997;98:893–900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Laporte S, Quenet S, Buchmuller-Cordier A, et al. Compliance and stability of INR of two oral anticoagulants with different half-lives: a randomised trial. Thromb Haemost. 2003;89:458–67.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Butler JA, Peveler RC, Roderick P, et al. Measuring compliance with drug regimens after renal transplantation: comparison of self-report and clinician rating with electronic monitoring. Transplantation. 2004;77:786–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Byerly M, Fisher R, Whatley K, et al. A comparison of electronic monitoring vs. clinician rating of antipsychotic adherence in outpatients with schizophrenia. Psychiatry Res. 2005;133:129–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gross R, Bilker WB, Friedman HM, Coyne JC, Strom BL. Provider inaccuracy in assessing adherence and outcomes with newly initiated antiretroviral therapy. AIDS. 2002;16(13):1835–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pullar T, Kumar S, Tindall H, Feely M. Time to stop counting the tablets? Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1989;46:163–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Cramer JA, Mattson RH, Prevey ML, et al. How often is medication taken as prescribed? A novel assessment technique. JAMA. 1989;261:3273–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Urquhart J. Role of patient compliance in clinical pharmacokinetics. A review of recent research. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1994;27:202–15.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Urquhart J. The electronic medication event monitor. Lessons for pharmacotherapy. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1997;32:345–56.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Wilson SJ, Wells PS, Kovacs MJ, et al. Comparing the quality of oral anticoagulant management by anticoagulation clinics and by family physicians: a randomized controlled trial. CMAJ. 2003;169:293–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gallus AS. Towards the safer use of warfarin: an overview. J Qual Clin Pract. 1999;19:55–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Ansell JE, Buttaro ML, Thomas OV, Knowlton CH. Consensus guidelines for coordinated outpatient oral anticoagulation therapy management. Anticoagulation Guidelines Task Force. Ann Pharmacother. 1997;31:604–15.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by grants from the NIH (R01-HL66176) and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (P01-HS11530). Dr. Kimmel is supported by P20RR020741. The authors would like to thank Anita Hill, BS; Kiasha Huling, BA; Linda Bowman, BS, RN; Mitchell Laskin, RPh; Mabel Chin, PharmD; and Francis Herrmann, BS, RPh, for their dedicated field work; Joseph Gascho, MD, for serving as the site investigator at the Hershey Medical Center; and Sandy Barile for editorial assistance.

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Kimmel has received research funding from GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer, and has served as a consultant to Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, and Pfizer, all unrelated to warfarin. Dr. Gross has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, unrelated to warfarin. Dr. Samaha has received grant support from Merck, Sharpe and Dome; Abbott; Kos Pharmaceuticals; and Aegerion, all unrelated to warfarin.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, 717 Blockley Hall, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA, 19104-6021, USA

    Catherine S. Parker MS, Zhen Chen PhD, Maureen Price RN, Robert Gross MD, MSCE, Joshua P. Metlay MD, PhD, Jason D. Christie MD, MSCE, Colleen M. Brensinger MS, Craig W. Newcomb MAR & Stephen E. Kimmel MD, MSCE

  2. Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Robert Gross MD, MSCE

  3. Department of Medicine, the Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Joshua P. Metlay MD, PhD

  4. Cardiovascular Division, the Veterans Affairs Medical Center and the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Frederick F. Samaha MD

Authors
  1. Catherine S. Parker MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zhen Chen PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maureen Price RN
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robert Gross MD, MSCE
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Joshua P. Metlay MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jason D. Christie MD, MSCE
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Colleen M. Brensinger MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Craig W. Newcomb MAR
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Frederick F. Samaha MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Stephen E. Kimmel MD, MSCE
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen E. Kimmel MD, MSCE.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Parker, C.S., Chen, Z., Price, M. et al. Adherence to Warfarin Assessed by Electronic Pill Caps, Clinician Assessment, and Patient Reports: Results from the IN-RANGE Study. J GEN INTERN MED 22, 1254–1259 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0233-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0233-1

KEY WORDS

Search

Navigation