Is Medication Adherence Predictive of Cardiovascular Outcomes and Blood Pressure Control? The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adherence to study medications is crucial to evaluating treatment effects in clinical trials. To assess whether in the SPRINT trial, adherence and cardiovascular outcomes are associated regardless of intervention assignment. METHODS: This study included 9,361 participants aged ≥50 years, recruited from 102 clinics. Participants were randomized to a Standard Treatment Group (targeted systolic blood pressure [SBP] <140 mm Hg) or an Intensive Treatment Group (targeted SBP <120 mm Hg) and followed for incident cardiovascular events until the study was halted early for benefit. The 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8) was administered at baseline, and at the 12- and 48-month (or close out) visit. RESULTS: Adjusting for covariates, there was no association between the baseline 8-item MMAS-8 and the likelihood of the primary composite endpoint, any of the secondary endpoints, or blood pressure (BP) control. Low adherence was associated with a higher body mass index, SBP, diastolic BP, and Patient Health Questionnaire, and high adherence was associated with a higher Montreal Cognitive Assessment. There was no difference in the MMAS-8 over time by treatment arm assignment. For the primary outcome (a composite of myocardial infarction, other acute coronary syndromes, stroke, heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes), baseline odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for the Low vs. Medium and vs. High; and, for Medium vs. High MMAS-8 were 1.02 (0.82-1.28), 1.07 (0.85-1.34), and 1.05 (0.88-1.250). CONCLUSIONS: In SPRINT, medication adherence as measured using the MMAS-8 was not associated with outcomes or BP control.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".