European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

, Volume 45, Issue 3, pp 211–215 | Cite as

Actual versus prescribed timing of lovastatin doses assessed by electronic compliance monitoring

  • W. Kruse
  • T. Nikolaus
  • J. Rampmaier
  • E. Weber
  • G. Schlierf


The objective of the study was to compare compliance with and the hypocholesterolaemic effect of lovastatin given once daily as a morning or an evening dose. Twenty-four out-patients with familial hypercholesterolaemia were randomly assigned to receive placebo first, then lovastatin 20 mg, to be taken once daily for 4 weeks, either with the breakfast or evening meal, in a single-blind fashion.

Drug compliance was assessed by pill counts and continuous electronic monitoring. Two compliance parameters were evaluated, consumption, defined as percentage of prescribed doses taken, and time compliance, the percentage of total dosing events recorded within defined intervals (6.00–10.00 h, and 17.00–21.00 h), for the morning and evening regimes.

Both regimes satisfactorily reduced the total and LDL-cholesterol concentrations, and there was no significant difference in the extent of the reductions.

Pill counts overestimated compliance, as revealed by the monitoring method. The times of actual consumption of doses by the patients often differed from that prescribed, predominantly in patients who were told to take the evening dose. Partial time compliance may have confounded the efficacy of the drugs. Electronic compliance monitoring appears to be particularly useful in chronopharmacological studies.

Key words

Compliance monitoring Lovastatin dose timing chronopharmacology plasma lipids familial hypercholesterolaemia 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Parker TS, McNamara DJ, Brown CD, Kolb R, Ahrens Jr EH (1984) Plasma mevalonate as a measure of cholesterol synthesis in man. J Clin Invest 74: 795–804Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wuttke H, Papalexiou P, Kasper FR (1983) Zum optimalen Einnahmezeitpunkt von Lipanthyl R250 Retard Kapseln. Therapiewoche 33: 6913–6922Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Peters JR, Hunninghake DB (1985) Effect of time of administration of cholestyramine on plasma lipids and lipoproteins. Artery 13: 1–6Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Illingworth DR (1986) Comparative efficacy of once versus twice daily mevinolin in the therapy of familial hypercholesterolemia. Clin Pharmacol Ther 40: 338–343Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hanefeld M, Lang PD, Fischer S, Leonhardt W, Bergman S, Jaroß W (1988) Effects of bezafibrate sustained release formulation on plasma lipoproteins in patients with hypercholesterolemia. Importance of timing of tablet intake for efficacy. Drug Res 38: 1835–1837Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Furjimura A, Ohashi K, Ebihara A (1992) Time-dependent change in the effect of probucol in subjects with elevated cholesterol. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 43: 299–301Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hanefeld M (1989) Timing of intake of lipid lowering drugs: is that of importance? Klin Wocheschr 67: 511–512Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Anon. (1991) Patient compliance in clinical trials. Lancet 337: 823–824Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pullar T (1991) Compliance with drug treatment. Br J Clin Pharmacol 32: 535–539Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pullar T, Kumar S, Tindall H, Feely M (1989) Time to stop counting the tablets? Clin Pharmacol Ther 46: 163–168Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cramer JA, Mattson RH, Prevey ML, Scheyer RD, Quellette VL (1989) How often is medication taken as prescribed? A novel assessment technique. JAMA 261: 3273–3277Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mäenpää H, Manninnen V, Heinonen OP (1987) Comparison of the digoxin marker with capsule counting and compliance questionnaire methods for measuring compliance to medication in a clinical trial. Eur Heart J [Suppl I]: 39–43Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Norell SE (1981) Monitoring compliance with pilocarpine therapy. Am J Ophthalmol 92: 727–731Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eisen SA, Woodward RS, Miller D, Spitznagel E, Windham CA (1987) The effect of medication compliance on the control of hypertension. J Gen Intern Med 2: 298–305Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cheung R, Dickins J, Nicholson PW, Thomas ASC, Smith HH, Larson HE, Desmukh AA, Dobbs RJ, Dobbs SM (1988) Compliance with antituberculous therapy: a field trial of a pill-box with a concealed recording device. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 35: 401–407Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kruse W, Weber E (1990) Dynamics of drug regimen compliance — its assessment by microprocessor-based monitoring. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 38: 561–565Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Averbuch M, Weintraub M, Pollack DJ (1990) Compliance assessment in clinical trials: the MEMS device. J Clin Pharmacoepidemiol 4: 199–204Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kruse W, Eggert-Kruse W, Rampmaier J, Runnebaum B, Weber E (1991) Dosage frequency and drug-compliance behaviour — a comparative study on compliance with medication to be taken twice or four times daily. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 41: 589–592Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kruse W, Schlierf G, Weber E (1989) Continuous compliance monitoring — its utility for the interpretation of drug trials. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 36 [Suppl 1]: 289Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schlierf G, Schuler G, Wirth A, Kohlmeier M, Vogel G (1988) Treatment of coronary heart disease by diet and exercise: fasting and diurnal lipoproteins. Klin Wochenschr 66: 1103–1109Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rudd P, Byyny RL, Zachary V, Lo Verde ME, Mitchell WD, Titus C, Marshall M (1988) Pill count measures of compliance in a drug trial, variability and suitability. Am J Hypertens 1: 309–312Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cramer JA, Quelette VL, Mattson RH (1990) Effect of microelectronic observation on compliance. Epilepsia 31: 617–618Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Henwood JM, Heel RC (1988) Lovastatin A preliminary review of its pharmacologic properties and therapeutic use in hyperlipidaemia. Drugs 36: 429–454Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cochrane AL (1972) Effectiveness and efficiency — Random reflections on health services. The Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust, NuffieldGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rudd P, Ahmed S, Zachary V, Barton C, Bonduelle D (1990) Improved compliance measures: applications in an ambulatory hypertensive drug trial. Clin Pharmacol Ther 48: 676–685Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vander Stichele RH, Thomson M, Verkoelen K, Droussin AM (1992) Measuring patient compliance with electronic monitoring: lisinopril versus atenolol in essential hypertension. Post Market Surv 6: 77–90Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Infratest Gesundheitsforschung (1990) Compliance, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bradford RH, Shear CL, Chremos AN, Dujovne C, Downton M, Franklin FA, Gould AL, Hesney M, Higgins J, Hurley DP, Langendorfer A, Nash DT, Pool JL, Schnapper H (1991) Expanded clinical evaluation of lovastatin (EXCEL) study results. Arch Intern Med 151: 43–49Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. Kruse
    • 1
    • 2
  • T. Nikolaus
    • 1
  • J. Rampmaier
    • 2
  • E. Weber
    • 2
  • G. Schlierf
    • 1
  1. 1.Klinisches Institut für Herzinfarktforschung an der Medizinischen UniversitätsklinikHeidelbergGermany
  2. 2.Abteilung für Klinische Pharmakologie, Medizinische UniversitätsklinikHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations