European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

, Volume 63, Issue 12, pp 1179–1184 | Cite as

Clinical evaluation of IDAS II, a new electronic device enabling drug adherence monitoring

  • Valérie Santschi
  • Grégoire Wuerzner
  • Marie-Paule Schneider
  • Olivier Bugnon
  • Michel BurnierEmail author
Pharmacoepidemiology and Prescription



The goal of this study was to evaluate clinically the acceptability of the IDAS II (Intelligent Drug Administration System), a new electronic device that enables drug adherence monitoring.


IDAS II was compared to another electronic monitor, the Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS) in a randomised two-way cross-over study involving 24 hypertensive patients treated with irbesartan. Patients used each device for 2 months. The main parameter of evaluation was the patients’ opinion on both devices. Rates of adherence and blood pressure were also assessed.


Most patients considered both devices to be reliable reminders (IDAS II: 75%;MEMS: 84%, p = ns). Ten patients (42%) preferred the MEMS, while 11 (46%) preferred the IDAS II; three (12%) expressed no preference. Patients found the MEMS device easier to use than the IDAS device (p < 0.001) but appreciated the IDAS blister packs better than the MEMS bulk packaging (p < 0.01). Over the 4-month period, the median “taking adherence” was excellent (99.2%) and comparable with both devices. However, the regularity of drug intake timing was higher with the IDAS II (p < 0.01).


IDAS II, a new electronic device enabling drug adherence monitoring without reconditioning of the drugs appears to be a well-accepted device. Overall, practicability and acceptability of the IDAS II and the MEMS device were similar. Thus, IDAS II could be a useful tool for the management of long-term therapies.


Acceptability Clinical assessment Electronic monitoring device Hypertension Patient adherence 



Funding: This study was supported by a grant from Bang and Olufsen Medicom a/s, Denmark

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors do not have any conflict of interest. The paper has been written and data analysed independently of BO Medicom, Denmark. There is no financial conflict of interest behind the fact that the study was sponsored by BO Medicom, Denmark.


  1. 1.
    Andrade SE, Kahler KH, Frech F, Chan KA (2006) Methods for evaluation of medication adherence and persistence using automated databases. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 15:565–574PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bertholet N, Favrat B, Fallab-Stubi CL, Brunner HR, Burnier M (2000) Why Objective Monitoring of Compliance is Important in the Management of Hypertension. J Clin Hypertens 2:258–262Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burnier M, Santschi V, Favrat B, Brunner HR (2003) Monitoring compliance in resistant hypertension: an important step in patient management. J Hypertens [Suppl] 21:S37–S42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burnier M, Schneider MP, Chiolero A, Stubi CL, Brunner HR (2001) Electronic compliance monitoring in resistant hypertension: the basis for rational therapeutic decisions. J Hypertens 19:335–341PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Caro JJ, Speckman JL, Salas M, Raggio G, Jackson JD (1999) Effect of initial drug choice on persistence with antihypertensive therapy: the importance of actual practice data. Can Med Assoc J 160:41–46Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cramer JA, Mattson RH, Prevey ML, Scheyer RD, Ouellette VL (1989) How often is medication taken as prescribed? A novel assessment technique. JAMA 261:3273–3277PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    DiMatteo MR (2004) Variations in patients' adherence to medical recommendations: a quantitative review of 50 years of research. Med Care 42:200–209PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fallab-Stubi CL, Zellweger JP, Sauty A, Uldry C, Iorillo D, Burnier M (1998) Electronic monitoring of adherence to treatment in the preventive chemotherapy of tuberculosis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2:525–530PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haynes RB, McDonald HP, Garg AX (2002) Helping patients follow prescribed treatment: clinical applications. JAMA 288:2880–2883PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Inui TS, Carter WB, Pecoraro RE (1981) Screening for noncompliance among patients with hypertension: is self-report the best available measure? Med Care 19:1061–1064PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jones JK, Gorkin L, Lian JF, Staffa JA, Fletcher AP (1995) Discontinuation of and changes in treatment after start of new courses of antihypertensive drugs: a study of a United Kingdom population. Br Med J 311:293–295Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schneider MP, Despland PA, Buclin T, Burnier M (2003) Evaluation of online telemonitoring of drug adherence: a pilot randomised, controlled study in patients with epilepsy. J Inf Technol Healthcare 1:419–435Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Urquhart J (1997) The electronic medication event monitor. Lessons for pharmacotherapy. Clin Pharmacokinet 32:345–356PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    World Health Organization (2003) Adherence to Long Term Therapies:eEvidence for Action. World Health Organization, Geneva, pp 1–194Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Valérie Santschi
    • 1
  • Grégoire Wuerzner
    • 2
  • Marie-Paule Schneider
    • 1
  • Olivier Bugnon
    • 1
  • Michel Burnier
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Policlinique Médicale UniversitaireLausanneSwitzerland
  2. 2.Division of Nephrology and Hypertension ConsultationCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CHUV)LausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations