Use of a microprocessor-equipped tablet box in monitoring compliance with antihypertensive treatment

Evening versus morning dosing regimen drug therapy for hypertension

BACKGROUND

Variation in blood pressure levels display circadian rhythms. Complete 24-hour blood pressure control is the primary goal of antihypertensive treatment and reducing adverse cardiovascular outcomes is the ultimate aim. This is an update of the review first published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of administration-time-related effects of once-daily evening versus conventional morning dosing antihypertensive drug therapy regimens on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and morbidity, total adverse events, withdrawals from treatment due to adverse effects, and reduction of systolic and diastolic blood pressure in people with primary hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register via Cochrane Register of Studies (17 June 2022), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 6, 2022); MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process and MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print (1 June 2022); Embase (1 June 2022); ClinicalTrials.gov (2 June 2022); Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBLD) (1978 to 2009); Chinese VIP (2009 to 7 August 2022); Chinese WANFANG DATA (2009 to 4 August 2022); China Academic Journal Network Publishing Database (CAJD) (2009 to 6 August 2022); Epistemonikos (3 September 2022) and the reference lists of relevant articles. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the administration-time-related effects of evening with morning dosing monotherapy regimens in people with primary hypertension. We excluded people with known secondary hypertension, shift workers or people with white coat hypertension.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two to four review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. We resolved disagreements by discussion or with another review author. We performed data synthesis and analyses using Review Manager Web for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and morbidity, serious adverse events, overall adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, change in 24-hour blood pressure and change in morning blood pressure. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis, fixed-effect meta-analysis, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 27 RCTs in this updated review, of which two RCTs were excluded from the meta-analyses for lack of data and number of groups not reported. The quantitative analysis included 25 RCTs with 3016 participants with primary hypertension. RCTs used angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (six trials), calcium channel blockers (nine trials), angiotensin II receptor blockers (seven trials), diuretics (two trials), α-blockers (one trial), and β-blockers (one trial). Fifteen trials were parallel designed, and 10 trials were cross-over designed. Most participants were white, and only two RCTs were conducted in Asia (China) and one in Africa (South Africa). All trials excluded people with risk factors of myocardial infarction and strokes. Most trials had high risk or unclear risk of bias in at least two of several key criteria, which was most prominent in allocation concealment (selection bias) and selective reporting (reporting bias). Meta-analysis showed significant heterogeneity across trials. No RCTs reported on cardiovascular mortality and cardiovascular morbidity. There may be little to no differences in all-cause mortality (after 26 weeks of active treatment: RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.04 to 5.42; RD 0, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; very low-certainty evidence), serious adverse events (after 8 to 26 weeks of active treatment: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.57; RD 0, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.03; very low-certainty evidence), overall adverse events (after 6 to 26 weeks of active treatment: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.20; I² = 37%; RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.02; I² = 38%; very low-certainty evidence) and withdrawals due to adverse events (after 6 to 26 weeks active treatment: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.23; I² = 0%; RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence was very uncertain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to the very limited data and the defects of the trials' designs, this systematic review did not find adequate evidence to determine which time dosing drug therapy regimen has more beneficial effects on cardiovascular outcomes or adverse events. We have very little confidence in the evidence showing that evening dosing of antihypertensive drugs is no more or less effective than morning administration to lower 24-hour blood pressure. The conclusions should not be assumed to apply to people receiving multiple antihypertensive drug regimens.

Evening versus morning dosing regimen drug therapy for hypertension

BACKGROUND

Variation in blood pressure levels display circadian rhythms. The morning surge in blood pressure is known to increase the risk of myocardial events in the first several hours post awakening. A systematic review of the administration-time-related-effects of evening versus morning dosing regimen of antihypertensive drugs in the management of patients with primary hypertension has not been conducted.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the administration-time-related-effects of antihypertensive drugs administered as once daily monotherapy in the evening versus morning administration regimen on all cause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity and reduction of blood pressure in patients with primary hypertension.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Cochrane CENTRAL on Ovid (4th Quarter 2009), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to October 2009), EMBASE (1974 to October 2009), the Chinese Biomedical literature database (1978 to 2009) and the reference lists of relevant articles. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials comparing the administration-time-related effects of evening with morning dosing monotherapy regimens in patients with primary hypertension were included. Patients with known secondary hypertension, shift workers or white coat hypertension were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Data synthesis and analysis were done using RevMan 5.1. Random effects meta-analysis and sensitivity analysis were conducted.

MAIN RESULTS

21 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in 1,993 patients with primary hypertension met the inclusion criteria for this review - ACEIs (5 trials), CCBs (7 trials), ARBs (6 trials), diuretics (2 trials), alpha-blockers (1 trial), and beta-blockers (1 trial). Meta-analysis showed significant heterogeneity across trials.No RCT reported on all cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular morbidity and serious adverse events.There was no statistically significant difference for overall adverse events (RR=0.78, 95%CI: 0.37 to 1.65) and withdrawals due to adverse events (RR=0.53, 95%CI: 0.26 to 1.07).No significant differences were noted for morning SBP (-1.62 mm Hg, 95% CI: -4.19 to 0.95) and morning DBP (-1.21 mm Hg, 95% CI: -3.28 to 0.86); but 24-hour BP (SBP: -1.71 mm Hg, 95% CI: -2.78 to -0.65; DBP: -1.38 mm Hg, 95% CI: -2.13 to -0.62) showed a statistically significant difference.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No RCT reported on clinically relevant outcome measures - all cause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity and morbidity. There were no significant differences in overall adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events among the evening versus morning dosing regimens. In terms of BP lowering efficacy, for 24-hour SBP and DBP, the data suggests that better blood pressure control was achieved with bedtime dosing than morning administration of antihypertensive medication, the clinical significance of which is not known.

Compliance with therapy in hypertensive patients

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated pharmacological compliance in hypertensive patients recruited during a 24-month period at the Hypertension Clinic of the S. Maria Nuova Hospital.

METHODS

The compliance profile scale was developed in order to classify compliance as sufficient, or poor. Compliance was evaluated according to patients' (1) global cardiovascular risk (hypertensive) and (2) complexity of prescribed treatment at enrolment (drug, number of pills).

RESULTS

A total of 367 patients were recruited; 82 were excluded owing to changes in therapeutic schedule or medication necessitated by other medical or surgical disease. Compliance was evaluated in 285 patients, 66% were male; the mean age was 72 +/- 12 years. Compliance was evaluated at a series of follow-ups at 3-month intervals and at 36 months of observation. Compliance at 36 months was good or sufficient in 56% of patients, but differed according to hypertensive and drug status. Compliance was better in patients with a higher level vs. lower level of hypertension severity. Specifically, compliance was better in hypertensives with co-morbidity (76%) than in hypertensives without co-morbidity (37%) or hypertensives with risk factors (65%). Moreover, compliance was better in patients with a more complex therapeutic regimen (drug 1 through 3: 47, 59 and 66%).

CONCLUSIONS

These data demonstrate a relationship between disease severity and compliance, independent of the prescribed therapeutic regimen. This suggests that the most important factor for therapy adherence is disease awareness and severity, and patients with a higher level of disease are more likely to be compliant.

Modeling and simulation of adherence: approaches and applications in therapeutics

Partial adherence with a prescribed or randomly assigned dose gives rise to unintended variability in actual drug exposure in clinical practice and during clinical trials. There are tremendous costs associated with incomplete and/or improper drug intake-to both individual patients and society as a whole. Methodology for quantifying the relation between adherence, exposure and drug response is an area of active research. Modeling and statistical approaches have been useful in evaluating the impact of adherence on therapeutics and in addressing the challenges of confounding and measurement error which arise in this context. This paper reviews quantitative approaches to using adherence information in improving therapeutics. It draws heavily on applications in the area of HIV pharmacology.

Facts and fiction of poor compliance as a cause of inadequate blood pressure control

OBJECTIVE

(i) To obtain an overview of measured compliance with antihypertensive medication; (ii) to explore sources of variation in measured compliance percentages between studies; and (iii) to investigate whether studies can establish a relationship between compliance and achieved blood pressure.

STUDY SELECTION

MEDLINE, PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched for studies, published between 1985 and 2003, in which patient compliance with antihypertensive medication was measured with electronic monitors.

DATA EXTRACTION

A standard form was used to extract relevant data from the included articles. Two investigators extracted all data independently.

RESULTS

Thirty studies were identified. The studies included were highly varied in their methods used to quantify compliance. Taking compliance and/or correct dosing were used in 20 studies. Mean taking compliance for a once-daily regimen was 94.0 +/- 4.4% and 88.2 +/- 6.5% for a twice-daily regimen. Mean correct dosing was 85.0 +/- 8.7% for a once-daily regimen and 75.3 +/- 6.5% for a twice-daily regimen. Proportions of patients with taking compliance or correct dosing </= 80% were provided by only five studies and ranged between 9 and 37%. Studies with a monitoring period exceeding 6 months showed a distinct decrease in compliance over time. Studies on the association between achieved blood pressure and compliance gave inconsistent results.

CONCLUSIONS

Although poor compliance is assumed to be an important explanation for inadequate blood pressure control, any convincing empirical evidence to support this hypothesis is currently lacking. The relationship between patient compliance and blood pressure control has not yet been properly established.

Compliance with saliva sampling protocols: electronic monitoring reveals invalid cortisol daytime profiles in noncompliant subjects

OBJECTIVE

Ambulatory saliva collections for subsequent analysis of free cortisol levels are now frequently applied to measure adrenocortical activity in healthy subjects and patient populations. Despite the prime importance of accurate timing of saliva collection outside the laboratory, no data are available on the compliance of study participants following a given sampling protocol. This study investigated how accurately subjects adhered to the instructions to collect six saliva samples throughout 1 day.

METHODS

Subjects were instructed to collect six saliva samples throughout 1 day (directly after awakening, 30 minutes after awakening, 11 AM, 3 PM, 8 PM, 10 PM). Objective compliance was measured using an electronic monitoring device given to the subjects either with ("informed" N = 23) or without ("noninformed" N = 24) their knowledge of the nature of the device. Data on subjective compliance were obtained by self-report.

RESULTS

Thirty-one subjects (74%) were found to comply with the sampling instructions, and 11 (26%) failed at least once to obtain the saliva sample at the correct time of day. Nine of the 11 noncompliant subjects (82%) had two or more noncompliant samples. Fifty-five percent (6 of 11) of the noncompliant subjects took sample 2 outside the sampling window. The circadian cortisol profile differed significantly between compliant and noncompliant subjects (F = 7.98, p =.007). The most important effect of compliance was seen in the rise of cortisol at awakening. Compliant subjects showed a robust increase, whereas noncompliant individuals had only minimal changes from baseline at 30 minutes after awakening (t = 2.89, p =.007). Thus the steepness of the circadian cortisol decline was greater for compliant subjects (t = 2.10, p =.043). Furthermore, the informed group adhered more closely to the sampling protocol than the noninformed subjects (p =.001). Self-reported compliance also differed significantly between study groups (p =.03). In the noninformed group, self-reported sampling accuracy was significantly higher than objectively measured compliance (p =.03); the two measures were similar in the informed group (p = NS).

CONCLUSIONS

A significant number of subjects did not obtain saliva samples reliably in an ambulatory setting. This can partially invalidate the cortisol results and mask potential differences between subject groups of interest. We therefore recommend the use of electronic monitoring devices or other suitable methods and that study participants be informed about the device when ambulatory saliva collection is performed.

A systematic review of the associations between dose regimens and medication compliance

BACKGROUND

Previous reviews of the literature on medication compliance have confirmed the inverse relationship between number of daily doses and rate of compliance. However, compliance in most of these studies was based on patient self-report, blood-level monitoring, prescription refills, or pill count data, none of which are as accurate as electronic monitoring (EM).

OBJECTIVE

In this paper, we review studies in which compliance was measured with an EM device to determine the associations between dose frequency and medication compliance.

METHODS

Articles included in this review were identified through literature searches of MEDLINE, PsychInfo, HealthStar, Health & Psychosocial Instruments, and the Cochrane Library using the search terms patient compliance, patient adherence, electronic monitoring, and MEMS (medication event monitoring systems). The review was limited to studies reporting compliance measured by EM devices, the most accurate compliance assessment method to date. Because EM was introduced only in 1986, the literature search was restricted to the years 1986 to 2000. In the identified studies, data were pooled to calculate mean compliance with once-daily, twice-daily, 3-times-daily, and 4-times-daily dosing regimens. Because of heterogeneity in definitions of compliance, 2 major categories of compliance rates were defined: dose-taking (taking the prescribed number of pills each day) and dose-timing (taking pills within the prescribed time frame).

RESULTS

A total of 76 studies were identified. Mean dose-taking compliance was 71% +/- 17% (range, 34%-97%) and declined as the number of daily doses increased: 1 dose = 79% +/- 14%, 2 doses = 69% +/- 15%, 3 doses = 65% +/- 16%, 4 doses = 51% +/- 20% (P < 0.001 among dose schedules). Compliance was significantly higher for once-daily versus 3-times-daily (P = 0.008), once-daily versus 4-times-daily (P < 0.001), and twice-daily versus 4-times-daily regimens (P = 0.001); however, there were no significant differences in compliance between once-daily and twice-daily regimens or between twice-daily and 3-times-daily regimens. In the subset of 14 studies that reported dose-timing results, mean dose-timing compliance was 59% +/- 24%; more frequent dosing was associated with lower compliance rates.

CONCLUSIONS

A review of studies that measured compliance using EM confirmed that the prescribed number of doses per day is inversely related to compliance. Simpler, less frequent dosing regimens resulted in better compliance across a variety of therapeutic classes.

Relation between insufficient response to antihypertensive treatment and poor compliance with treatment: a prospective case-control study

OBJECTIVES

To prospectively compare compliance with treatment in patients with hypertension responsive to treatment versus patients with treatment resistant hypertension.

DESIGN

Prospective case-control study.

SETTING

Outpatient department in a large city hospital in Switzerland, providing primary, secondary, and tertiary care.

PARTICIPANTS

110 consecutive medical outpatients with hypertension and taking stable treatment with at least two antihypertensive drugs for at least four weeks.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Treatment compliance assessed with MEMS devices; blood pressure determined by 12 hour daytime ambulatory monitoring (pressure <135/85 mm Hg in patients aged 60 indicated hypertension responsive to treatment).

RESULTS

Complete data were available for 103 patients, of whom 86 took >/=80% of their prescribed doses ("compliant") and 17 took <80% ("non-compliant"). Of the 49 patients with treatment resistant hypertension, 40 (82%) were compliant, while 46 (85%) of the 54 patients responsive to treatment were compliant.

CONCLUSION

Non-compliance with treatment was not more prevalent in patients with treatment resistant hypertension than in treatment responsive patients.

Electronic pill-boxes in the evaluation of antihypertensive treatment compliance: comparison of once daily versus twice daily regimen

The objective was to compare the compliance of hypertensive patients treated with captopril twice daily or trandolapril once daily. After a 2-week placebo period, hypertensive patients (diastolic BP 95-115 mm Hg) were randomly allocated to trandolapril 2 mg once daily or to captopril 25 mg twice daily for 6 months. Trandolapril and captopril were packed in electronic pill-boxes equipped with a microprocessor that recorded date and time of each opening (MEMS). Patients' compliance was assessed both by standard pill-count and by electronic monitoring. Blood pressure was measured using a validated semi-automatic device at the end of the placebo period and of the treatment period. One hundred sixty-two patients entered the study. Compliance data were evaluable for 133 patients (62 in the captopril group and 71 in the trandolapril group). Treatment groups were comparable at baseline except for age (P = .046). Using electronic pill-box, overall compliance was 98.9% in the trandolapril group and 97.5% in the captopril group (P = .002). The percentage of missed doses was 2.6% in the trandolapril group and 3.3% in the captopril group (P = .06). The percentage of delayed doses was 1.8% in the trandolapril group and 11.7% in the captopril group (P = .0001). The percentage of correct dosing periods, ie, a period with only one correct recorded opening, was 94.0% in the trandolapril group and 78.1% in the captopril group (P = .0001). Results were unchanged when adjusted for age. At the end of the study, 41% of patients in the trandolapril group and 27% in the captopril group (NS) had their blood pressure normalized (systolic BP <140 and diastolic BP <90 mm Hg). In this 6-month study, the electronic pill-box allowed refined analysis of compliance of hypertensive patients. Patients' compliance with once daily trandolapril was higher than with twice daily captopril. The between-group difference is mainly explained by an increase in delayed doses in the twice daily group.

Compliance with aspirin or placebo in the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) study

OBJECTIVE

The Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) study is a large, prospective trial aimed at defining the level of diastolic blood pressure required during anti-hypertensive therapy in order to achieve maximal protection against cardiovascular complications. A further aim is to assess the effects on morbidity and mortality of a 75 mg daily dose of aspirin compared with placebo.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Compliance with double-blind administration of aspirin or placebo added to anti-hypertensive treatment was evaluated for 1 year in a subset (n = 530) of the study population (n = 18 790) by placing the medication in a container closed with an electronic cap that records precisely the time of each opening.

RESULTS

The 1-year compliance rate (percentage of days with one opening per day) could be assessed in 501 patients. It averaged 78.3 +/- 25% in aspirin-treated patients (n = 236, mean +/- SD), compared with 78.5 +/- 25% in patients having received placebo (n = 265), and was not influenced by age, sex or country (Germany, Italy, Switzerland, UK). The compliance rate was also similar irrespective of whether the patients had reached their target blood pressure, but was significantly better during the first than the second 6-month monitoring period (84.1 +/- 22% versus 72.3 +/- 32%, n = 501).

CONCLUSIONS

The high rate of compliance with aspirin or placebo observed in the HOT study suggests that the patients were highly motivated and may account for the unusually good blood pressure control achieved in this trial during long-term anti-hypertensive treatment.

[Compliance in antihypertensive therapy: analyses in scientific articles]

The aim of this study was to evaluate scientific articles published between 1991-1995, in order to identify the compliance in antihypertensive therapy, One hundred seven scientific articles were evaluated. The results showed that 68% were related to patient, 63% to pharmacological treatment, 62% general, 39% non pharmacological treatment, 34% organizational factors, and 8% related to disease. Compliance with antihypertensive therapy was the major challenge of hypertension management and to know how this aspect was focalized in scientific articles possible reduce non compliance in hypertension.

Drug compliance among hypertensive patients in Tabuk, Saudi Arabia

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the compliance rate and associated factors among a population of hypertensive subjects registered in hospitals and primary health care centres.

DESIGN

A prospective study carried out on a sample of hypertensive subjects.

METHOD

Compliance with treatment by the study sample was measured using the pill-counting method. The reasons for noncompliance are listed and the status of blood pressure control among compliant and noncompliant subjects is reported.

RESULTS

The compliance rate was 53.0%. It was associated positively with male sex, and negatively with older age, symptoms of illness and drug side effects. The degree of blood pressure control was worse among noncompliant subjects. Reasons for noncompliance included the asymptomatic nature of hypertension, a shortage of drugs, side effects, forgetfulness and lack of health education.

CONCLUSIONS

The compliance rate was low in this study and was accompanied by inadequate blood pressure control among noncompliant subjects. Disoriented behavior regarding hypertension and its medications was observed.

The implications of noncompliance with antihypertensive medication

Given the clear evidence that reducing blood pressure decreases the vascular complications of hypertension, loss of efficacy represents the principal complication of noncompliance with antihypertensive therapy. Withdrawal symptoms are also important and occur after abruptly stopping beta-blockers and centrally-acting antihypertensive drugs. Very few studies have been conducted to assess the impact of missing 1 or 2 doses of an antihypertensive agent on short term control of blood pressure. A high trough to peak ratio (> 50%) for a once-daily medication suggests a long duration of action. However, methodological problems in the design of the studies to determine trough to peak ratios make comparisons between various medications very difficult. In general, however, stopping a drug with a low through to peak ratio is more likely to result in loss of antihypertensive effect than a drug with a high ratio. Poor compliance in dose-escalating studies with antihypertensive agents may have resulted in excessively high dose recommendations in clinical trials.