Erne P, Saxenhofer H, Waeber B, Heynen G
Kantonsspital Luzern.
Schweiz Rundsch Med Prax. 1994 Sep 27;83(39):1079-83.
A prospective cross-over study was performed in a general practice environment to assess and compare compliance data obtained by electronic monitoring on a BID or QD regimen in 113 patients with hypertension or angina pectoris. All patients were on a BID regimen (nifedipine SR) during the first month and switched to QD regimen (amlodipine) for another month. Taking compliance (i.e. the proportion of days with correct dosing) improved in 30% of patients (95% confidence interval 19 to 41%, p < 0.001), when switching from a BID to a QD regimen, but at the same time there was a 15% increase (95% confidence interval 5 to 25%, p < 0.02) in the number of patients with one or more no-dosing days. About 8% of patients had a low compliance rate, irrespective of the dosage regimen. Actual dosage intervals were used to estimate extent and timing of periods with unsatisfactory drug activity for various hypothetical drug durations of action, and it appears that the apparent advantage of QD regimen in terms of compliance is clinically meaningful only, when the duration of activity extents beyond the dosage interval in all patients.
在一个普通医疗环境中进行了一项前瞻性交叉研究,以评估和比较113例高血压或心绞痛患者采用电子监测法在每日两次(BID)或每日一次(QD)用药方案下获得的依从性数据。所有患者在第一个月采用每日两次用药方案(硝苯地平缓释片),并在接下来的一个月改用每日一次用药方案(氨氯地平)。从每日两次用药方案转换为每日一次用药方案时,30%的患者服药依从性(即正确服药天数的比例)有所提高(95%置信区间为19%至41%,p<0.001),但同时有一次或多次漏服药物天数的患者数量增加了15%(95%置信区间为5%至25%,p<0.02)。无论采用何种给药方案,约8%的患者服药依从率较低。实际给药间隔用于估计在各种假设药物作用持续时间下药物活性不理想时期的范围和时间,并且似乎每日一次用药方案在依从性方面的明显优势仅在所有患者中药物活性持续时间超过给药间隔时才具有临床意义。