European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

, Volume 38, Issue 6, pp 561–565 | Cite as

Dynamics of drug regimen compliance — its assessment by microprocessor-based monitoring

  • W. Kruse
  • E. Weber
Originals

Summary

The utility of a new microprocessor-based method for continuous monitoring of compliance in taking solid medicaments has been evaluated. Medication intake in 31 ambulant patients was assessed in a prospective observational study under the conditions of routine practice. The patients (aged 14–87 y, mean 50 y) were receiving long-term drug treatment for various chronic diseases.

There was marked interindividual and intraindividual variation in compliance with different drugs. Deviations from the prescribed dosage regimens were caused by omission of doses (22.7% of prescribed doses) and intake of extra doses (5.6% of prescribed doses). Continuous monitoring revealed that in 19% of the monitoring period no medication was taken, in 13% there was partial intake, and in 8% extra doses were taken. Patient-initiated drug holidays occurred in 50% of patients. They were responsible for 76% of the medication-free time.

It is concluded, that continuous compliance monitoring is practicable in ambulatory patients. It provides information about the dynamics of drug intake behaviour that cannot be obtained from medical histories or from clinical or laboratory examination. The information could be used effectively in individual patient care and in clinical drug trials.

Key words

Drug regimens compliance 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Gordis L (1979) Conceptual and methodological problems in measuring patient compliance. In: Haynes RB, Taylor DW, Sackett DL (eds) Compliance in health care. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Norell SE, Granström P-A, Wassen R (1980) A medication monitor and fluorescein technique designed to study medication behaviour. Acta Ophthalmol 58: 459–467Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Keram S, Williams ME (1988) Quantifying the ease of difficulty older persons experience in opening medication containers. J Am Geriatr Soc 36: 198–201Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rudd P, Marshall G, Taylor CB, Agras WS (1981) Medication monitor/dispenser for pharmacological and compliance research. Clin Pharmacol Ther 29: 278Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Weintraub M (1976) Intelligent and capricious non-compliance. In: Lasagna L (ed) Patient compliance. Future, Mt. KiscoGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blackwell B (1979) The drug regimen and treatment compliance. In: Haynes RB, Taylor DW, Sackett DL (eds) Compliance in health care. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Haynes RB (1979) Determinants of compliance: The disease and mechanics of treatment. In: Haynes RB, Taylor DW, Sackett DL (eds) Compliance in health care. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Spriet A, Bieler D, Dechorgnat J, Simon P (1980) Adherence of elderly patients to treatment with pentoxifylline. Clin Pharmacol Ther 27: 1–8Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Norell SE (1981) Monitoring compliance with pilocarpine therapy. Am J Ophthalmol 92: 727–731Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guayatt G, Sackett DL, Taylor DW, Chong J, Roberts R, Pugsley S (1986) Determining optimal therapy — Randomized trials in individual patients. N Engl J Med 314: 889–892Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bergman U, Wiholm B-E (1981) Drug-related problems causing admissions to a medical clinic. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 20: 193–200Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Levy M, Mermelstein L, Hemo D (1982) Medical admissions due to non-compliance with drug therapy. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol 20: 600–604Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Graham H, Livesly B (1983) Can readmissions to a geriatric medical unit be prevented? Lancet I: 404–406Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Davidsen F, Haghfelt T, Gram LF, Brøsen K (1988) Adverse drug reactions and drug non-compliance as primary causes of admissions to a cardiology department. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 34: 83–86Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grymonpre RE, Mitenko PA, Sitar DS, Aoki FY, Montgomery PR (1988) Drug-associated hospital admissions in older medical patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 36: 1092–1098Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    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
  17. 17.
    Haynes RB, Sackett DL, Taylor RW, Roberts RG, Johnson AL (1977) Manipulation of the therapeutic regimen to improve compliance: conceptions and misconceptions. Clin Pharmacol Ther 22: 125–130Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pullar T, Birkwell AJ, Will PG, Hay A, Feely MP (1988) Use of pharmacologic indicator to compare compliance with tablets prescribed to take once, twice or three times daily. Clin Pharmacol Ther 44: 540–545Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Prinoth M, Spahn H, Mutschler E (1986) The development of reliable compliance tests for anti hypertensive drugs. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 29: 535–539Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Joyce CRB (1962) Patient co-operation and the sensitivity of clinical trials. J Chron Dis 15: 1025–1036Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Norell SE (1983) Methods in assessing drug compliance. Acta Med Scand [Suppl] 683: 35–40Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. Kruse
    • 1
  • E. Weber
    • 2
  1. 1.Krankenhaus BethanienMedizinische UniversitätsklinikHeidelbergFRG
  2. 2.Abteilung für Klinische PharmakologieMedizinische UniversitätsklinikHeidelbergFRG

Personalised recommendations