European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

, Volume 47, Issue 6, pp 477–481 | Cite as

Patient compliance and therapeutic coverage: comparison of amlodipine and slow release nifedipine in the treatment of hypertension

  • J. -M. Detry
  • P. Block
  • G. De Backer
  • J. -P. Degaute
  • R. Six
  • The Belgian Collaborative Study Group
Pharmacoepidemiology and Prescription

Abstract

To study patient compliance in hypertensive outpatients amlodipine (5 mg once daily) and slow release nifedipine (20 mg twice daily) were compared in an open, crossover study in general practices.

Four methods of assessment for patient compliance (pill count, taking compliance, days with correct dosing, timing compliance) were used in both study arms. For the latter three assessment a special device, the medication event monitoring system, was used to record the time and date of each opening and closure of the container.

The compliance of the 320 hypertensive patients with once-daily amlodipine was markedly superior to twice-daily slow release nifedipine. Therapeutic coverage was also significantly better for amlodipine in the hypertensive patients. Amlodipine was better tolerated than nifedipine slow release.

Patient compliance and therapeutic coverage with the calcium antagonist amlodipine given once daily was superior to slow release nifedipine b. d. in hypertensive outpatients recruited in general practice.

Statistical Unit: Léon Kaufmann, Marie-Paule Derde, Data Investigation Company Europe, Brussels

Participating Investigators: D. Abbate, G. Armand, C.I. Authelet, J.L. Badot, J. Baeck, P. Baeck, P. Bastin, C.I. Bernard, P. Bernard, B. Beyssens, J. Bosly, P. Boudart, J. Bourdeaudhuy, W. Callens, L. Carolides, Y. Catry, E. Cerstelotte, F. Charlier, H. Charloteaux, J.M. Chaudron, L. Christiaen, G. Cornette, P. Cranskens, R. Creteur, N. De Cock, M. De Corte, A. De Vos, P. Defrance, P. Delhaye, G. Deneckere, M. Dobbeleir, A. Dufour, P. Dumont, L. D'Haen, H. D'Haenens, P. Eloy, P. Evrard, C. Fellemans, G. Geeraerts, L. Gielen, D. Grand, J. Grosjean, J. Guffens, R. Guillaume, R. Hacquaert, V. Hamoir, W. Hens, M. Hondeghem, M.C. Humblet-Koch, L. Leven, W. Janssens, L. Jeanfils, J. Jodogne, B. Jortay, W. Ketels, J.M. Krzesinski, E. Langendries, J. Lannoy, M. Leeman, J. Leire, P. Lempereur, L. Lenaerts, F. Lustman, R. Martens, Y. Maus, M. Meroueh, J.P. Meurant, P. Meurant, A. Michiels, E. Mievis, H. Moors, K. Naesens, P. Neels, J. Neven, W. Odeurs, W. Pardon, M. Peduzzi, J. Piette, D. Plessers, P. Putzeys, A. Quoidbach, A. Renaerts, G. Rits, M. Ruhwiedel, M. Salavracos, M. Seret, P. Sibille, M. Taziaux, J. Teucq, H. Therasse, F. Tihon, F. Vandenput, J. Van Elsen, J.P. Van Liefferinge, J. Van Neck, M. Van Pelt, T. Van Vlaenderen, G. Vandenbeylaardt, M. Vandewoude, F. Veldeman, D. Ven, F. Verbruggen, A. Vlaeminck, P. Werion, J. Westerlinck.

Key words

Amlodipine Nifedipine Compliance slow release formulation hypertension therapeutic coverage 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Cramer JA, Spilker B (1991) Compliance in medical practice and clinical trials. In: Cramer JA, Spilker B (eds) Raven Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Urquhart J (1992) Ascertaining how much compliance is enough with outpatient antibiotic regimens. Postgrad Med J 68 [Suppl 3]: S49-S59PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vander Stichele R (1991) Measurement of patient compliance and the interpretation of randomised clinical trials. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 41: 27–35Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Onesti G (1983) Treatment of mild hypertension and the problem of compliance. Curr Med Res Opin 8 [Suppl 3]: 77–80Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Horwitz RI, Viscoli CM, Berkman L, et al (1990) Treatment adherence and risk of death after a myocardial infarction. Lancet 336: 542–545Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Psaty BM, Koepsell TD, Wagner EH, et al (1990) The relative risk of incident coronary heart disease associated with recently stopping the use of beta blockers. JAMA 263: 1653–1657Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Miller RR, Olson HG, Amserdam EA, Mason DT (1975) Propranolol withdrawal rebound phenomenon. Exacerbation of coronary events after abrupt cessation of antianginal therapy. N Engl J Med 293: 416–418PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    National Pharmaceutical Council (NPC) (1992) Non-compliance with medication regimens: an economic tragedy. June 1992, 2: 1–2Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Purcell H, Waller DG, Fox K (1989) Therapeutic focus. Calcium antagonists in cardiovascular disease. Br J Clin Pract 43: 369–379Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cappucio FP, Markandu MD, Sagnella GA, et al (1991) Effects of amlodipine on urinary sodium excretion, renin-angiotension-aldosterone system, atrial natriuretic peptide and blood pressure in hypertension. J Hum Hypertens 5: 115–119Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vandewoude MFJ, Lambert M, Vryens R (1991) Open evaluation of amlodipine in the monotherapeutic treatment of systolic hypertension in the elderly. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 17: S28-S29Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Abernathy Dr (1992) Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of amlodipine. Cardiology 80: 31–36Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leonetti G, Rupoli L, Chianca R, et al (1991) Acute, chronic and postwithdrawal antihypertensive and renal effects of amlodipine in hypertensive patients. J Hypertens 9: S394-S395Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ueda S, Meredith P, Hawie C, Elliott H. A comparative assessment of the duration of action of amlodipine and nifedipine GITS in normotensive subjects. Br J Clin Pharmacol (in press)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cruickshank JM, McAinsh J (1992) Patient compliance on taking cardiovascular drug therapy. Acta Therapeutica 18: 53–60Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gatley MS (1968) To be taken as directed. J R Coll Gen Pract 16: 39Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cramer JA, Mattson RH, Prevey ML, et al (1989) How often is medication taken as prescribed? JAMA 261: 3273–3277CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lange Anderson K, Piatkowski W, Green KA, Ottmann W (1985) Working ability and exercise tolerance during treatment of mild hypertension. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 56: 41–47Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Asphund J, Danielson M, Ohman P (1984) Patients compliance in hypertension — the importance of number of tablets. Br J Clin Pharmacol 17: 547–552Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Addison DJ, Frewin DB, Penhall RK (1979) Compliance and beta-blocker therapy: a study of hypertension patients attending the cardiac and renal outpatient clinics at a large hospital. Current Therapeutics 20: 19–24Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moore MA (1988) Improving compliance with anti-hypertensive therapy. Am Fam Physician 37: 142–148Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sneddon PL, Farral DL (1989) Medication compliance in elderly patients. Pharm J 243 (6553): R18-R20Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Guerrero D, Rudd P, Bryant-Kosling C, Middleton BE (1993) Antihypertensive Medication-Taking. Investigation of a simple regimen. Am J Hypertens 6: 586–592Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pullar T, Kurnar S, Tindall H, Feely M (1989) Time to stop counting the tablets. Clin Pharmacol Ther 46: 163–168Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rudd P, Byyny RL, Zachary V, et al (1989) The natural history of medication compliance in a drug trial: limitations of pill counts. Clin Pharmacol Ther 46: 169–176Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. -M. Detry
    • 1
  • P. Block
    • 2
  • G. De Backer
    • 3
  • J. -P. Degaute
    • 4
  • R. Six
    • 5
  • The Belgian Collaborative Study Group
  1. 1.Division of CardiologyUniversity of Louvain, St. Luc University HospitalBrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.Division of CardiologyUniversiteit Brussel, A.Z.-V.U.B., University HospitalBrusselsBelgium
  3. 3.Cardiac Revalidation and Social MedicineUniversiteit GentGent
  4. 4.Hypertension Clinic, Hôpital ErasmeUniversité Libre de BruxellesBrusselsBelgium
  5. 5.Internal MedicineVrije Universiteit Brussel, A.Z.-V.U.B.BrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations