Clinical Pharmacokinetics

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 202–215 | Cite as

Role of Patient Compliance in Clinical Pharmacokinetics

A Review of Recent Research
  • John Urquhart
Review Article Clinical Pharmacokinetic Concepts

Summary

Until 1986 to 1987, the estimation of patient compliance with prescribed drug regimens in ambulatory care relied on methods that were biased either by their subjectivity or by the improvement in compliance that commonly occurs during the day or two prior to a scheduled examination, so called ‘white-coat compliance’.

In 1986 to 1987, 2 objective methods were developed: electronic monitoring and low-dose, slow-turnover chemical markers (digoxin or phenobarbital [phenobarbitone]) incorporated into dosage forms. While neither method is without limitations, both have enabled major advances in the understanding of patients’ compliance with dosage regimens and, thus, the spectrum of drug exposure in ambulatory care. The new methods have also triggered not only a revival of interest in patient compliance and its determinants, but also new statistical approaches to interpreting the clinical correlates of widely variable drug administration, and thus drug exposure, in drug trials.

The marker methods prove dose ingestion during the 3 to 7 days prior to blood sampling, but do not reveal the timing of doses. The electronic monitoring methods, i.e. time and date-stamping microcircuitry incorporated into drug packages, provide a continuous record of timing of presumptive doses throughout periods of many months, but do not prove dose ingestion. The electronic record has been judged robust enough to detect certain types of investigator fraud, and to support modelling projections of the complete time course of the plasma drug concentration during a trial.

Both marker and electronic methods show that the predominant errors are those of omission, i.e. delays or omissions of scheduled doses. Patient interviews, diaries, and counts of returned, untaken doses have been shown by both marker and electronic monitoring methods to consistently and substantially to overestimate compliance. Monitoring of plasma drug concentrations also overestimates compliance, because white-coat compliance is prevalent, and the pharmacokinetic turnover of most drugs is rapid enough that measured concentrations of drug in plasma reflect only drug administration during the period of white-coat compliance.

Thus, compliance is a great deal poorer in clinical trials than has been revealed by the older methods. The long-standing underestimation of poor compliance in drug trials has many implications for the interpretation of drug trials, for optimal dose estimation, for the interpretation of failed drug therapy, and for accurate labelling of prescription drugs.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bond WS, Hussar DA. Detection methods and strategies for improving medication compliance. Am J Hosp Pharm 1991; 48: 1978–88PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vander Stichele R. Measurement of patient compliance and the interpretation of randomized clinical trials. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1991; 41: 27–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Urquhart J. Real-time compliance monitoring in clinical trials: methods, early results, prospects. In: Hindmarch I, Stonier P, editors. Human psychopharmacology, Vol. III. Chichester (UK): John Wiley, 1990: 129–47Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kruse W. Patient compliance with drug treatment — new perspectives on an old problem. Clin Investig 1992; 70: 163–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pullar T, Feely M. Problems of compliance with drug treatment: new solutions? Pharm J 1990; 245: 213–5Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mäenpää H, Javela K, Pikkarainen J, et al. Minimal doses of digoxin: a new marker for compliance to medication. Eur Heart J 1987; 8 Suppl. I: 31–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Feely M, Cooke J, Price D, et al. Low-dose phenobarbitone as an indicator of compliance with drug therapy. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1987; 24: 77–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Glover F. Dispenser for pharmaceuticals having patient compliance monitor apparatus. US Patent 4,034,757, July 12, 1977Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kass MA, Meltzer D, Gordon M. A miniature compliance monitor for ophthalmology. Arch Ophthalmol 1984; 102: 1550PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cramer JA, Mattson RH, Prevey ML, et al. How often is medication taken as prescribed? A novel assessment technique. JAMA 1989; 261: 3273–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eisen SA, Woodward RS, Miller D, et al. The effect of medication compliance on the control of hypertension. J Gen Intern Med 1987; 2: 298–305PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rubio A, Cox C, Weintraub M. Prediction of diltiazem plasma concentration curves from limited measurements using compliance data. Clin Pharmacokinet 1992; 22: 238–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Weber E. Compliance: Neue Meßmethod mit MEMS. Med Mo Pharm 1988; 9(11): 308–9Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kruse W, Weber E. Dynamics of drug regimen compliance — its assessment by microprocessor-based monitoring. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1990; 38: 561–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Urquhart J. Noncompliance: the ultimate absorption barrier. In: Prescott LF, Nimmo WS, editors. Novel drug delivery and its therapeutic applications. Chichester (UK): John Wiley, 1989: 127–37Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Efron B, Feldman D. Compliance as an explanatory variable in clinical trials. J Am Stat Assoc 1991; 86(413): 7–17Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sheiner LB. The intellectual health of clinical drug evaluation. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1991; 50: 4–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Urquhart J, Chevalley C. Impact of unrecognized dosing errors on the cost and effectiveness of pharmaceuticals. Drug Info J 1988; 22: 363–78Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Urquhart J. Time to take our medicines, seriously. Pharm. Weekbl Sci 1992; 127: 769–76Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weintraub M. Intelligent noncompliance and capricious compliance. In: Lasagna L, editor. Patient compliance. New York: Futura, 1976: 39–47Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dirks JF, Kinsman RA. Nondichotomous patterns of medication usage: the yes-no fallacy. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1982; 31: 413–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Waterhouse DM, Calzone KA, Mele C, et al. Adherence to oral tamoxifen: a comparison of patient self-report, pill counts, and microelectronic monitoring. J Clin Oncol 1993; 11: 1189–97PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Didlake RH, Dreyfus K, Kerman RH, et al. Patient noncompliance: a major cause of late graft failure in cyclosporinetreated renal transplants. Transplant Proc 1988; 20; Suppl. 3: 63–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rovelli M, Palmeri D, Vossler E, et al. Noncompliance in organ transplant recipients. Transplant Proc 1989; 21(1): 833–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kass MA, Gordon M, Meltzer DW. Can ophthalmologists correctly identify patients defaulting from pilocarpine therapy? Am J Ophthalmol 1986; 101: 524–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cramer JA, Scheyer RD, Mattson RH. Compliance declines between clinic visits. Arch Int Med 1990; 150: 1509–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Feinstein AR. On white-coat effects and the electronic monitoring of compliance. Arch Intern Med 1990; 150: 1377–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Medication regimens: causes of noncompliance. Washington DC: Office of the Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services, June 1990Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Urquhart J. Patient compliance as an explanatory variable in four selected cardiovascular studies. In: Cramer JA, Spilker B, editors. Compliance in medical practice and clinical trials. New York: Raven Press, 1991: 301–22Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Urquhart J. Partial compliance in cardiovascular disease: risk implications. Br J Clin Pract 1994; Suppl 73: 2–12Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Meredith PA, Elliott HL. Therapeutic coverage: reducing the risks of partial compliance. Br J Clin Pract 1994; Suppl 73: 13–7Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Psaty BM, Koepsell TD, Wagner EH, et al. The relative risk of incident coronary heart disease associated with recently stopping the use of beta blockers. JAMA 1990; 263: 1653–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Anon. Long-term use of beta blockers: the need for sustained compliance. WHO Drug Info 1990; 4(2): 52–3Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pullar T, Kumar S, Tindall H, et al. Time to stop counting the tablets? Clin Pharmacol Ther 1989; 46: 163–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rudd P, Byyny RL, Zachary V, et al. The natural history of medication compliance in a drug trial: limitations of pill counts. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1989; 46: 169–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Guerrero D, Rudd P, Bryant-Kosling C, et al. Antihypertensive medication-taking. Investigation of a simple regimen. Am J Hypertens 1993; 6: 586–92PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kruse W, Nikolaus T, Rampmaier J, et al. Actual versus prescribed timing of lovastatin doses assessed by electronic compliance monitoring. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1993; 44: 211–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Meier P. Discussion. J Am Stat Assoc 1991; 86(413): 19–22Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lee YJ, Ellenberg JH, Hirta DG, et al. Analysis of clinical trials by treatment actually received: is it really an option. Stat Med 1991; 10: 1595–605PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    The Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trial results: (I) Reduction in incidence of coronary heart disease; (II) The relationship of reduction in incidence or coronary heart disease to cholesterol lowering. JAMA 1984; 251: 351–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Questran (cholestyramine). Physicians’ Desk Reference. Oradell (NJ): Medical Economics, 1994: 642–3Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lasagna L, Hutt PB. Health care, research, and regulatory impact of noncompliance. In: Cramer JA, Spilker B, editors. Compliance in medical practice and clinical trials. New York: Raven Press, 1991: 393–403Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Compliance. Munich, Germany: 1990, Infratest AG.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kruse W, Rampmaier J, Ullrich G, Weber E. Patterns of drug compliance with medication to be taken once and twice daily assessed by continuous electronic monitoring in primary care. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. In pressGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    McKenney JM, Slining JM, Hendersen RH, et al. The effect of clinical pharmacy services on patients with essential hypertension. Circulation 1973; 48: 1104–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Dickey FF, Mattar ME, Chudzik GM. Pharmacist counseling increases drug regimen compliance. J Am Hosp Assoc 1975; 49: 85–8Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Inui TS, Yourtree EL, Williamson JW. Improved outcomes in hypertension after physician tutorials: a controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 1976; 84: 646–51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Haynes RB, Sackett DL, Gibson ES, et al. Improvement of medication compliance in uncontrolled hypertension. Lancet 1976; 1: 1265–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Cable GL, Schneider PJ. Experiences with the compliance clinic: assessment of the effect. Contemp Pharm Pract 1982; 5: 38–44PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Foote A, Erfurt JC. Hypertension control at the work site: comparison of screening and referral alone, referral and follow-up, and on-site treatment. N Engl J Med 1983; 308: 809–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Bond CA, Monson R. Sustained improvement in drug documentation, compliance, and disease control. Arch Intern Med 1984; 144: 1159–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hammarlund ER, Ostrum JR, Kethley AJ. The effects of drugs counseling and other educational strategies on drug utilization of the elderly. Med Care 1985; 23: 165–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Leirer VO, Morrow DG, Pariante GM, et al. Elders’ nonadherence, its assessment, and computer assisted instruction for medication recall training. J Am Geriatr Soc 1988; 36: 877–84PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Snider DE Jr, Hutton MD. Improving patient compliance in tuberculosis treatment programs. Center for Diseases Control, Atlanta, Georgia: US Dept of Health & Human Services. [Revised] February 1989Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Urquhart J. Cost-benefit assessment of patient education. In: Can patient education really make a difference? Proc USP Open Conference; 1992 Sept 21–23: Rockville (Md): United States Pharmacopeia, 1993: 37–50Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Levy G. A pharmacokinetic perspective on medicament non-compliance. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1993; 54: 242–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Joyce CRB. Patient co-operation and the sensitivity of clinical trials. J Chron Dis 1962; 15: 1025–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Wood HF, Feinstein AR, Taranta A, et al. Rheumatic fever in children and adolescents: a long-term epidemiologic study of subsequent prophylaxis, streptococcal infections, and clinical sequelae. III. Comparative effectiveness of three prophylaxis regimens in preventing streptococcal infections and rheumatic recurrences. Ann Int Med 1964; 60 Suppl. 5: 31–46Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Kruse WH-H. Compliance with treatment of hyperlipoproteinemia in medical practice and clinical trials. In: Cramer JA, Spilker B, editors. Compliance in medical practice and clinical trials. New York: Raven Press, 1991: 175–86Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Morris SE, Groom GV, Cameron ED, et al. Studies on low dose oral contraceptives: plasma hormone changes in relation to deliberate pill (‘MICROGYNON 30’) omission. Contraception 1979; 20: 61–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Chowdry V, Joshi UM, Gopalkrishna K, et al. ‘Escape’ ovulation in women due to the missing of low dose combination oral contraceptive pills. Contraception 1980; 22: 241–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Wang E, Shi S, Cekan SZ, et al. Hormonal consequences of ‘missing the pill’. Contraception 1982; 26: 545–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Landgren B-M, Diczfalusy E. Hormonal consequences of missing the pill during the first two days of three consecutive artificial cycles. Contraception 1984; 29: 437–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Smith SK, Kirkman RJE, Arce BB, et al. The effect of deliberate omission of TRINORDIOL® or MICROGYNON® on the hypothalamo-pituitary-ovarian axis. Contraception 1986; 34: 513–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Johnson BF, Whelton A, McMahon FG. Betaxolol vs atenolol in hypertension: a comparison of efficacy, duration of response, and effects of withdrawal [abstract 1429]. Am J Hypertens 1990; 3(5): Part II, 121AGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Uretsky BF, Young JB, Shahidi FE, et al. Randomized study assessing the effect of digoxin withdrawal in patients with mild to moderate chronic congestive heart failure: results of the PROVED study. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993; 22: 955–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Packer M, Gheorghiade M, Young JB, et al. Withdrawal of digoxin from patients with chronic heart failure treated with angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 1–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Coronary Drug Project Research Group. Influence of adherence to treatment and response of cholesterol on mortality in the coronary drug project. N Engl J Med 1980; 303: 1038–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Rubin D. Comment: dose-response estimates. J Am Stat Assoc 1991; 86(413): 22–4Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Goetghebeur EJT, Pocock SJ. Statistical issues in allowing for noncompliance and withdrawal. Drug Info J 1993; 27: 837–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Coats AJS, Adamopoulos S, Meyer TE, et al. Effects of physical training in chronic heart failure. Lancet 1990; 335: 63–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Phillips GD, Harrison NK, Cummin ARC, et al. New method for measuring compliance with long term oxygen treatment. BMJ 1994; 308: 1544–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Fielder AR, Auld R, Irwin M, et al. Compliance monitoring in amblyopia therapy. Lancet 1994; 343: 547PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Peck CC, Barr WH, Benet LZ, et al. Opportunities for integration of pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and toxicokinetics in rational drug development. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1992; 51: 465–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Wood HF, Simpson R, Feinstein AR, et al. Rheumatic fever in children and adolescents: a long-term epidemiologic study of subsequent prophylaxis, streptococcal infections, and clinical sequelae. I. Description of the investigative techniques and of the population studied. Ann Int Med 1964; 60 Suppl. 5: 6–17PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Gavrin JB, Tursky E, Albam B, et al. Rheumatic fever in children and adolescents: a long-term epidemiologic study of subsequent prophylaxis, streptococcal infections, and clinical sequelae. II. Maintenance and preservation of the population. Ann Int Med 1964; 60 Suppl. 5: 18–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Urquhart J. Ascertaining how much compliance is enough with outpatient antibiotic regimens. Postgrad Med J 1992; 68 Suppl. 3: S49–59PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Gordis L. General concepts for use of markers in clinical trials. Controlled Clin Trials 1984; 5: 481–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Manninen V, Elo MO, Frick H, et al. Lipid alternations and decline in the incidence of coronary heart disease in the Helsinki Heart Study. JAMA 1988; 260: 641–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Mäenpää H, Manninen V, Heinonen OP. Comparison of the digoxin marker with capsule counting and compliance questionnaire methods for measuring compliance to medication in a clinical trial. Eur Heart J 1987; 8 Suppl. I: 39–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Kumar S, Haigh JRM, Rhodes LE, et al. Poor compliance is a major factor in unstable outpatient control of anticoagulant therapy. Thromb Haemost 1989; 62: 729–32PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Pullar T, Peaker S, Martin MFR, et al. The use of a pharmacological indicator to investigate compliance in patients with a poor response to antirheumatic therapy. Br J Rheumatol 1988; 27: 381–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Penn ND, Speaker S, Griffiths AP, et al. Use of a pharmacological indicator to monitor compliance with thyroxine. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1988; 35: 327–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Pullar T, Birtwell AJ, Wiles PG, et al. Use of a pharmacologic indicator to compare compliance with tablets prescribed once, twice, or three times daily. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1988; 44: 540–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Kass MA, Zimmerman T, Yablonski M, et al. Compliance to pilocarpine therapy [ARVO abstract 2]. Invest Ophthalmol 1977;Suppl. 108Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Averbuch M, Weintraub M, Pollack DJ. Compliance assessment in clinical trials: the MEMS device. J Clin Res Pharmacoepidemiol 1990; 4: 199–204Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Potter LS. Oral contraceptive compliance and its role in the effectiveness of the method. In: Cramer JA, Spilker B, editors. Compliance in medical practice and clinical trials. New York: Raven Press, 1991: 195–207Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Tashkin DP, Rand C, Nides M, et al. A nebulizer chronolog to monitor compliance with inhaler use. Am J Med 1991; 91 Suppl. 4A: 33S–36SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Powers-Cramer ML. Use of MEMS® as a source document in clinical trials. Abstracts of the Drug Information Association Workshop on Clinical Data Management: New Techniques, New Technologies. 1990 Sept 24–6; Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Petzinna D. Miscellaneous useful methods to detect fraud. Paper presented at Drug Information Association conference ‘Detection of Fraud’, Sept 27–8, 1993, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Métry J-M. How technology may help. Paper presented at Drug Information Association conference ‘Detection of Fraud’, Sept 27–8, 1993, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Vander Stichele RH, Thomson M, Verkoelen K, et al. Measuring patient compliance with electronic monitoring: lisinopril versus atenolol in essential hypertension. Post-marketing Surveillance 1992; 6: 77–90Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Harter JG, Peck CC. Chronobiology: suggestions for integrating it into drug development. Ann NY Acad Sci 1991; 618: 563–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Hasford J. Biometric issues in measuring and analyzing partial compliance in clinical trials. In: Cramer JA, Spilker B, editors. Compliance in medical practice and clinical trials. New York: Raven Press, 1991: 265–81Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Temple R. Dose-response and registration of new drugs. In: Lasagna L, Erill S, Naranjo CA, editors. Dose-response relationships in clinical pharmacology. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1989: 145–67Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Lasagna L. Pharmacometry in man: the state of the art. In: Lasagna L, Erill S, Naranjo CA, editors. Dose-response Relationships in Clinical Pharmacology. Esteve Foundation Symposia, vol 3. Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica, 1989: 1–7Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Anon. Patient compliance in therapeutic trials [editorial]. Lancet 1991; 337: 823–4Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Meredith PA, Elliott HL. Therapeutic coverage: reducing the risks of partial compliance. Br J Clin Practice 1994; Suppl 73: 13–17Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Matsui D, Hermann C, Braudo M, et al. Clinical use of the Medication Event Monitoring System: A new window into pediatric compliance. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1992; 52: 102–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Paladino JA, Sperry HE, Backes JM, et al. Clinical and economic evaluation of oral ciprofloxacin after an abbreviated course of intravenous antibiotics. Am J Med 1991; 91: 462–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Matsuyama JR, Mason BJ, Jue SG. Pharmacists’ interventions using an electronic medication-event monitoring device’s adherence data versus pill counts. Ann Pharmacother 1993; 27: 851–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Deming WE. Out of the crisis. Cambridge (MA): MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study, 1982Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    van den Besselaar AMHP, van der Meer FJM, Gerrits-Drabbe CW. Therapeutic control of oral anticoagulant treatment in the Netherlands. Am J Clin Path 1988; 90: 685–90PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    van der Meer J, Hillege HL, Kootstra GJ, et al. Prevention of one-year vein-graft occlusion after aortocoronary-bypass surgery: a comparison of low-dose aspirin, low-dose aspirin plus dipyridamole, and oral anticoagulants. Lancet 1993; 342: 257–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Guillebaud J. Any questions? BMJ 1993; 307: 617Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    How to take the pill. In: Physicians’ desk reference. Oradell (NJ): Medical Economics, 1994: 1673–4Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Urquhart
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of EpidemiologyUniversity of LimburgMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.APREX CorporationFremontUSA

Personalised recommendations