the implications of noncompliance with antihypertensive medication

10
REVIEW ARTICLE Drugs 1996 Aug; 52 (2): 1B6-195 0012-6667/96/000B.()186/S10.00/0 © Adis International Limited. All rights reserved. The Implications of Noncompliance with Antihypertensive Medication Briegeen Girvin 1 and G. Dennis Johnston 2 1 Drug Utilisation Research Unit, Department of Therapeutics and Pharmacology, The Queen's University of Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland 2 Department of Therapeutics and Pharmacology, The Queen's University of Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland Contents Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Methods of Assessing Patient Noncompliance with Antihypertensive Drugs . 1.1 Attendance at a Clinic 1.2 Prescription Refills . 1.3 Patient Interview 1.4 Pill Counts ..... 1.5 Urine Assays . . . . 1.6 Plasma Concentrations 1.7 Electronic Monitoring. . 2. Implications of Noncompliance 2.1 Increased Mortality and Morbidity 2.2 Effects and Risks of Stopping Antihypertensives Other Than Loss of Blood Pressure Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 The Impact of Noncompliance with Different Antihypertensive Agents on Blood Pressure Control . . . . . 2.3.1 Therapeutic Sufficiency 2.3.2 Trough to Peak Ratio 2.3.3 Thiazide Diuretics 2.3.4 . . . . . . 2.3.5 a-Blockers ..... . 2.3.6 Calcium Antagonists 2.3.7 ACE Inhibitors .... 2.4 Excessively High Dose Recommendations in Dose-Ranging Studies . 3. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 187 187 187 187 187 188 188 188 189 189 189 190 190 190 191 191 191 192 192 193 193 Summary Given the clear evidence that reducing blood pressure decreases the vascular complications of hypertension, loss of efficacy represents the principal compli- cation of noncompliance with antihypertensive therapy. Withdrawal symptoms are also important and occur after abruptly stopping l3-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

Upload: dr-g-d-johnston

Post on 19-Mar-2017

215 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

REVIEW ARTICLE Drugs 1996 Aug; 52 (2): 1B6-195 0012-6667/96/000B.()186/S10.00/0

© Adis International Limited. All rights reserved.

The Implications of Noncompliance with Antihypertensive Medication Briegeen Girvin1 and G. Dennis Johnston2

1 Drug Utilisation Research Unit, Department of Therapeutics and Pharmacology, The Queen's University of Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland

2 Department of Therapeutics and Pharmacology, The Queen's University of Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland

Contents Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Methods of Assessing Patient Noncompliance with Antihypertensive Drugs .

1.1 Attendance at a Clinic 1.2 Prescription Refills . 1.3 Patient Interview 1.4 Pill Counts ..... 1.5 Urine Assays . . . . 1.6 Plasma Concentrations 1.7 Electronic Monitoring. .

2. Implications of Noncompliance 2.1 Increased Mortality and Morbidity 2.2 Effects and Risks of Stopping Antihypertensives Other Than Loss of

Blood Pressure Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 The Impact of Noncompliance with Different Antihypertensive Agents on

Blood Pressure Control . . . . . 2.3.1 Therapeutic Sufficiency 2.3.2 Trough to Peak Ratio 2.3.3 Thiazide Diuretics 2.3.4 ~-Blockers. . . . . . . 2.3.5 a-Blockers ..... . 2.3.6 Calcium Antagonists 2.3.7 ACE Inhibitors ....

2.4 Excessively High Dose Recommendations in Dose-Ranging Studies . 3. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

186 187 187 187 187 187 188 188 188 189 189

189

190 190 190 191 191 191 192 192 193 193

Summary 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 l3-blockers and centrally­acting 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

Noncompliance with Antihypertensives 187

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 trough to peak ratio is more likely to result in loss of antihypertensive effect than a drug with a high ratio. Poor compliance in dose­escalating studies with antihypertensive agents may have resulted in excessively high dose recommendations in clinical trials.

Compliance has been defined as 'The extent to which the patient's behaviour (in terms of taking medications, following diets or executing other lifestyle changes) coincides with the clinical pre­scription' .II]

Few studies have set out to determine the mag­nitude of reduced blood pressure control when 1 or 2 doses of an antihypertensive medication are omit­ted. Most investigations that try to link a level of compliance with blood pressure control commonly use overall measures of compliance, e.g. pill counts. When attempts are made to determine a re­lationship between compliance and blood pressure control it should be remembered that compliance is only one factor that can contribute to a change in blood pressure. Alterations in bodyweight, life­style modifications (e.g. exercise, smoking and al­cohol intake), recent activity and several other fac­tors can alter a blood pressure measurement. It also depends on the drug(s) and dosage(s) used: a par­tially compliant patient may have adequate blood pressure control if the doses prescribed are too high.

1. Methods of Assessing Patient Noncompliance with Antihypertensive Drugs

All methods of measuring compliance have drawbacks. A few studies have attempted to link compliance with blood pressure control. However, since the studies involved the use of different med­ications and dosages and different definitions of compliance and control of blood pressure, the rela­tionship between blood pressure control and com­pliance has been difficult to determine.

© Adls Intematlonal Um~ed. All rights reserved.

1.1 Attendance at a Clinic

Attendance at a blood pressure clinic can give a crude estimate of patient compliance. Early studies showed that the average drop-out rate from keep­ing appointments at a blood pressure clinic was 50%.[2-5] A more recent estimation of clinic non­attendance was lower at 15.5%.[6]

1.2 Prescription Refills

Monitoring prescriptions can give an overall es­timate of drug use in a community. Compliance measured by prescription refills of antihyperten­sives has been estimated at 66%P] Compliance with hydrochlorothiazide medication has been esti­mated at 61.2% as determined by monthly pre­scription refills over a 6-month period.l8] The au­thors stated that compliance was significantly correlated with mean diastolic blood pressure (r = -0.63, p < 0.05).

1.3 Patient Interview

Some studies have attempted to link compliance assessed by patient interview to blood pressure control and have reported that better compliance results in lower blood pressure. [9, 10] An interesting finding in two other studies was that good diastolic blood pressure control was found in several non­compliant patients, raising the possibility of over­treatment or unnecessary treatment.[1I,12] It is gen­erally accepted that admission of noncompliance is accurate but that denial of noncompliance may be incorrect. Patient report does not coincide with data obtained from electronic monitoring.l13]

1.4 Pill Counts

Pill counts have been the main measure of com-

Drugs 1996 Aug; 52 (2)

188

pliance in most hyperteRsion studies. In a study by Sackett and colleagues[14] conducted on Canadian hypertensive steelworkers, an arbitrary value of 80% compliance with pill counts was agreed for adequate blood pressure control. This was because only pill counts of 80% or more were associated with a statistically significant reduction in blood pressure. However, the study involved a small sam­ple size and the 80% value was not specific to one drug group since most of the patients were taking various medications.

Since then, many researchers have taken this value of 80% compliance with pill count to repre­sent satisfactory compliance. However, patients may discard any unused pills, and weekly pill counts seem to provide better information than long term average pill counts.[15]

1 .5 Urine Assays

Lowenthal and colleagues[16] tested the urine from 172 hypertensive patients to determine com­pliance with thiazide diuretics. They found that two-thirds of patients with positive urine tests were 3.2 times as likely to be at goal blood pressure than the one-third with negative urine tests.

The inaccuracies that can be encountered during studies which use urine measurements as a compli­ance indicator have been discussed by Prinoth et a1.l 17] Many studies have not considered the factors which influence the time interval during which a drug can be detected in the urine following inges­tion.

1 .6 Plasma Concentrations

Plasma concentrations of antihypertensive drugs have been used to assess patient compliance,[18] but are not routinely used in clinical practice. Plasma concentrations give no indication of compliance between blood sampling, and the relationship be­tween plasma concentration and effect is poorly defined.

Unfortunately, patients can appear to be compli­ant by dosing close to the expected blood test, and

© Adis Intemational Limited. All rights reserved.

Girvin & Johnston

can temporarily achieve plasma concentrations comparable to those at steady state.

Low-dose phenobarbital (phenobarbitone) has successfully been used as a biological marker to detect noncompliance with certain medications be­cause of its long elimination half-life (tY2~)'p9]

In an outpatient study to monitor the compliance of patients with various conditions, compliance (using plasma phenobarbital concentrations) was related to blood pressure control in 7 hypertensive patients. Five of them had good compliance using phenobarbital concentrations and pill counts, and adequate control of blood pressure. One patient was poorly controlled and found to have no pheno­barbital in his blood. It was later found that he had not even collected his prescription although his doctor had rated him as being a 'good complier' .[19]

It has been suggested that greater use should be made of objective drug-induced variables as an as­sessment of compliance, e.g. lowering of resting heart rate on ~-blockers, and the decrease in potas­sium and increase in uric acid seen in patients on thiazide diuretics PO] However, it is generally thought that these are too variable to be used as a reliable measure of drug compliance.

1 .7 Electronic Monitoring

The most recent effective development in the measurement of drug compliance has been the use of electronic monitoring. Most of the studies have involved the Medication Event Monitoring System ('MEMS', Aprex Corporation, USA). This consists of a standard pill bottle whose lid is fitted with a microprocessor capable of recording the exact date and time the pill bottle was opened. It cannot con­firm whether or not the medication was removed or ingested but it is unlikely that many patients would systematically open and close the bottle without taking the medication.

The following is a brief description of some of the hypertension studies involving the 'MEMS' de­vice in relation to antihypertensive efficacy. The interest generated from these studies has been more in terms of assessing drug compliance than at-

Drugs 1996 Aug. 52 (2)

Noncompliance with Antihypertensives

tempting to determine the impact on control of blood pressure.

In a study comparing isradipine and enalapril, both drugs were prescribed twice daily, but less than half of all openings occurred within 12 ± 2 hours.[21] This would have gone undetected using pill counts, which were 92 and 99% for the 2 groups. Over-dispensing also occurred during the 3 days before a scheduled visit.

Electronic monitoring showed that the possible reason for an unexpected rise in blood pressure in I patient taking isradipine was because previous doses had been taken less than 5 hours prior to the clinic assessment, whereas 20 hours had elapsed at the visit when blood pressure control was lost. This suggests that isradipine is relatively short-acting and, for this drug, minor degrees of poor compli­ance could result in loss of effect.

With hydrochlorothiazide and chlorthalidone, blood pressure reduction related better to the total number of doses taken during a I-month period than to the timing of the dosesp2] This suggests that these drugs may be more 'forgiving' about epi­sodes of noncompliance and that patients should be advised to ingest all prescribed doses, regard­less of the time interval between doses. It may also partly account for the long term efficacy of thiazide diuretics compared with ~-blockers in the el­derlyP3]

Compliance decreases with time after inclusion into a study and may be related to the frequency of drug administration.[24] Compliance (defined as the percentage of days during which the prescribed number of doses were removed) improved from 59% on a 3 times daily regimen to 84% on a once daily hypertensive regimen. [25] Compliance with amlodipine 5mg once daily, either in the morning or the evening, was found to be higher with morn­ing administration.[26]

In a comparison between 10 and 20mg nifedi­pine twice daily with a fixed combination of 50mg triamterene plus 25mg hydrochlorothiazide once daily, compliance did not differ between the once daily and twice daily regimensP7] However, days without administration were observed twice as fre-

© Adis International Limited. All rights reserved.

189

quently with the once daily than with the twice daily regimen. More frequent omissions occurred at weekends than during weekdays.

Similar results were obtained in a study compar­ing twice daily nifedipine and once daily arnlodip­ine.[28] These studies suggest that once daily ad­ministration should only be recommended when the duration of action of the drug extends well be­yond the 24-hour interval, thus allowing for inev­itable periods of noncompliance.

2. Implications of Noncompliance

2.1 Increased Mortality and Morbidity

The role of antihypertensive therapy in reducing morbidity and mortality has been well docu­mented,[29-31] especially with respect to stroke.[32] Poor compliance with antihypertensive therapy, sufficient to result in loss of antihypertensive con­trol, will clearly cause reversal of the beneficial effects on stroke, cardiovascular disease, hyperten­sive nephropathy and retinopathy.

The impact of poor drug compliance which has a partial effect on blood pressure control is more difficult to assess but it would be reasonable to assume that the benefits would be less than opti­mal. Poor compliance is probably the major reason for the low impact of antihypertensive drug ther­apy in free living populations as compared with those enrolled in drug studies[33] and why the inci­dence of malignant hypertension has not declined in treated populations.[34] An increased rate of hospitalisation among hypertensive patients who failed to refill their prescriptions has also been demonstrated by Maronde and colleagues)35]

The financial implications of excess morbidity due to noncompliance are potentially enor­mous. [36,37]

2.2 Effects and Risks of Stopping Antihypertensives Other Than Loss of Blood Pressure Control

A withdrawal syndrome caused by abruptly dis­continuing ~-adrenoceptor blocking agents is al­ready a widely described phenomenon. This may

Drugs 1996 Aug; 52 (2)

190

include tachycardia, malaise, tremor and anxi­ety.l38] The withdrawal symptoms are associated more with the higher doses of ~-blockers used to treat angina rather than the lower doses used in hypertension. Discontinuation of a ~-blocker in pa­tients with ischaemic heart disease has led to cases of exacerbations of acute angina, myocardial in­farction and sudden death. Alderman[39] reported that within several days after stopping propranolol treatment in 6 patients with stable angina, one died and 3 sustained myocardial infarctions.

The results of a study conducted by Psaty et al.l40] suggest that even patients with no prior his­tory of ischaemic heart disease are at risk of devel­oping ischaemic heart disease if they stop taking their ~-blockers. Patients on ~-blockers with a compliance value of less than 80% (determined from prescription refills) had a 4-fold increase in the relative risk of developing coronary artery dis­ease. The ischaemic event occurred between 2 and 23 days after their prescriptions ran out. Partial compliance with diuretic therapy was not associ­ated with any increased risk.

Withdrawal syndromes may occur after abruptly discontinuing high doses of centrally-acting anti­hypertensives such as methyldopa and clonidine, involving symptoms of sympathetic overactiv­ity.l41] Withdrawal of clonidine can lead to a dan­gerous, sometimes fatal increase in blood pres­sure[42,43] which is exaggerated in patients also taking ~-blockers.l44]

2.3 The Impact of Noncompliance with Different Antihypertensive Agents on Blood Pressure Control

The concept of therapeutic sufficiency and trough to peak ratios may be important in assessing the implications of noncompliance with antihyperten­sives.

2.3. 1 Therapeutic Sufficiency Therapeutic sufficiency has been defined as the

achievement of 'defined goals of disease control and prevention despite patients' imperfect behavi­our and clinicians' imperfect prescriptions' .[45]

© Adis International limited. All rights reserved.

Girvin & Johnston

This does not necessarily mean that the drug must have a long t'l1P, but instead it attempts to relate the drug's pharmacokinetics to its pharmacodynamics.

Medications with a long duration of action are said to be 'forgiving' in that omission of 1 or 2 doses will not interfere with the overall therapeutic effect.l46] Recently, there has been an interest in developing medications which allow for partial compliance.

Levy[47] has recently drawn attention to a phar­macokinetic parameter, Km, which was originally described in the 1960s. 'K' is the terminal elimina­tion rate constant and om' is the slope of a plot of drug effect versus log drug concentration. 'Forgiv­ing' drugs have low Km values, which may be due to a long tyzP with subsequent low K value or a small m value irrespective of V/2p.

2.3.2 Trough fo Peak Ilotio The rationale behind the US Food and Drug Ad­

ministration (FDA) guidelines on trough to peak ratios has been recently discussed.[48] It is recom­mended that for whatever chosen dosage interval of an antihypertensive agent, the trough to peak ratio should exceed 50%. This was in an attempt to prevent the licensing of unnecessarily high doses of drugs to extend their duration of action.

It is considered that a high trough to peak ratio suggests a long duration of action, which might in theory allow for periods of partial compliance. However, the data from studies assessing trough to peak ratios are very conflicting because of various methodological problems in assessing the ratio. Some of the problems include: (i) failure to include placebo responses; (ii) non-uniformity in the defi­nition of when the trough and peak effects occur; (iii) different methods of measuring ambulatory blood pressure and the possible inaccuracies in these methods.

It has also been proposed that the nature of the concentration-effect relationship will affect the trough to peak ratio.l49] Meredith and Elliott[49] propose that the trough to peak ratio of drugs with a linear concentration-effect relationship is rela­tively insensitive to the dose. Examples of drugs

Drugs 1996 Aug; 52 (2)

Noncompliance with Antihypertensives

with this linear relationship include prazosin, doxazosin, nifedipine, verapamil and amlodipine.

However, drugs with a sigmoid concentration­effect relationship (e.g. enalapril and cilazapril) have a trough to peak ratio which changes with changing dose.l491 Relatively few studies have been designed to assess how quickly the antihyper­tensive action of a drug is lost after discontinuation or during periods of partial compliance such as one or two missed doses. The following is a summary of the available information.

2.3.3 Thiazide Diuretics In a study to estimate the duration of action of

hydrochlorothiazide, 7 patients took placebo for at least 8 weeks, followed by hydrochlorothiazide 100 mg/day for 12 weeks, followed by placebo for another 12 weeks.l501 Mean arterial pressures taken at noon during the latter placebo phase were lower than during the placebo run-in phase (p < 0.05). This suggests that the antihypertensive effect of hydrochlorothiazide was carried over into the pla­cebo phase.

After discontinuation of chlorothiazide 500 mg/day and chlorthalidone 100 mg/day, blood pressure was measured for 1, 2, 3 and 7 days after withdrawal.l511 The full antihypertensive effect of chlorothiazide was present after 24 hours and of chlorthalidone after 3 days. This suggests that chlorthalidone could be given every 3 days al­though the dosage used was higher than the cur­rently recommended dosage for hypertension of 12.5 to 25 mg/day.

2.3.413-Blockers 144 hypertensive patients were given either

betaxolol 10 mg/day or atenolol 50 mg/day for 5 weeks.l521 Patients were then given placebo tablets for 2 days. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring showed that the magnitude and duration of blood pressure response 24 to 48 hours after a dose of betaxolol was statistically superior to that of aten-0101.

In a study designed to investigate the length of antihypertensive action of atenolol, 12 hyperten­sive patients were given atenolol100 mg/day for 2

© Adis Intematlonal Limited. All rights reserved.

191

weeks.l531 The drug was then withdrawn and blood pressure measurements made during the 3 days af­ter withdrawal. A significant resting blood pressure reduction was found 34 and 48 hours after admin­istration of the last 100mg tablet, suggesting that blood pressure would still be controlled for 1 or 2 days after a dose omission.

In another study, 35 hypertensive patients were given 600mg atenolol for 3 weeks.l541 After stop­ping the medication, their blood pressure showed a slow return to baseline over 3 weeks. However, the dosage in this study was much higher than the dosage of 50 to 100 mg/day currently used to treat hypertension.

The trough to peak ratios of atenolol (50 to 100mg; n = 20) and acebutolol (400 to 500mg, n = 19) were determined and compared in a placebo­controlled double-blind randomised study.[551 The diastolic trough to peak ratio was 46% for atenolol and 71 % for acebutolol. The reduction in diastolic blood pressure during the final 6-hour period for atenolol was significantly less than during the first 18 hours of the dosage interval. However, for acebutolol this difference was not found to be sig­nificant.

The fact that the longer duration of action of one drug over another is not necessarily linked to the drug's tY2~ is illustrated by the observation that bopindolol (tY2~ 4 to 5 hours) lowers blood pressure when given at weekly intervals.[561

2.3.5 a-Blockers Doxazosin was given once daily to 6 hyperten­

sive men for 4 weeks.l571 24-hour monitoring showed that the reduction in blood pressure was no longer detected on days 2 and 7 after drug with­drawal. Withdrawal of doxazosin did not result in any rebound hypertension/cardiovascular compli­cations, or any symptoms related to sympathetic overactivity. Doxazosin treatment produced a sig­nificant reduction in daytime but not night-time systolic and diastolic blood pressure. In another study, doxazosin produced a significant reduction in blood pressure during the early morning hours when administered at night.l581

Drugs 1996 Aug: 52 (2)

192

2.3.6 Calcium Antagonists The antihypertensive effect of amlodipine has

been demonstrated during the 48-hour period after drug withdrawal in 18 hypertensive patients.[59) Ambulatory monitoring showed no statistical dif­ference between the first and second 24-hour post­dose blood pressure reading. This would suggest that one dose on alternate days would not signifi­cantly impair blood pressure control.

Nifedipine, verapamil and diltiazem all have a short t1/2~ and a relatively short duration of action. However, nifedipine has recently been reformu­lated as nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic sys­tem (GITS) for once-daily administration which, during steady-state administration, has been shown to maintain a statistically significant reduction in blood pressure for up to 36 hours)60) The trough to peak: ratio for nifedipine GITS has been reported to be 81 % for the 30mg dose and 107% for the 60mg dose)61)

Lacidipine is thought to have a relatively long duration of action, with a placebo-corrected trough to peak ratio of 62.5% (4 mg/day) and 71.1 % (6 mg/day»)62)

2.3.7 ACE Inhibitors Most of the trough to peak ratio data so far have

been performed on the ACE inhibitors. Zannad[63) has reviewed 136 studies concerning this group of drugs and collated the trough to peak: ratio infor­mation on only 19 well designed studies. These are summarised in table I.

Table I suggests that lisinopril, enalapril and trandolapril have a sufficient trough to peak ratio to justify once daily administration.[63) In a recent placebo-controlled double-blind randornised study, 88 hypertensive patients were given either tran­dolapril 2mg or enalapril 20mg as a single dose in the morning.[64) Ambulatory blood pressure data were analysed for a 48-hour period after the last dose to assess the effects of a day with no dose. Trandolapril sustained a more favourable anti­hypertensive effect during the 'missed dose' day. On active treatment, the trough to peak: ratios for trandolapril were 90% (systolic) and 54% (dias­tolic), the corresponding values for enalapril both

© Adis International Limited. All rights reserved.

Girvin & Johnston

Table I. Trough to peak ratios for various ACE inhibitors

ACE inhibitor Trough to peak ratio' (%)

Captopril 0-40b ,c

Enalapril 40-80

Lisinopril 40-80

Perindopril 30d

Quinapril 30-40d

Ramipril 40-50d

Trandolapril 50-100

a The trough to peak ratio represents the ratio of the reduction in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) achieved immediately pre-dose compared with the peak reduction in DBP post-dose.

b Trough to peak ratios calculated for morning dose.

c Trough to peak ratios calculated for evening dose.

d Values ?50 have been reported in other sources or studies not included in this analysis.

being 49%. After the missed dose, the ratios for trandolapril were 58% (systolic) and 36% (dias­tolic) and for enalapril they were 10% (systolic) and 19% (diastolic). This study suggests that trandolapril sustains its antihypertensive effect bet­ter than enalapril following a missed dose.

Correlations between mean plasma concentra­tions of antihypertensives and changes in blood pressure have been made with conflicting results in groups of patients. Recently Meredith and El­liott[65) have shown that for various agents, kinetic­dynamic relationships can be more clearly defined when study participants are considered individu­ally.

Such a concentration-effect relationship has been defined for blood pressure response in indi­vidual patients with controlled release nifedi­pine,l66) verapamil,l67) doxazosin,[68) prazosin[69) and enalapril. [70) Meredith and Elliott[65) have pre­dicted (using data derived from concentration-ef­fect modelling studies) the implications of non­compliance of a missed dose in terms of blood pressure control with controlled release nifedipine, enalapril and amlodipine. They predicted blood pressure control would be lost after a missed dose of enalapril and controlled release nifedipine but not with amlodipine.

Drugs 1996 Aug; 52 (2)

Noncompliance with Antihypertensives

2.4 Excessively High Dose Recommendations in Dose-Ranging Studies

There are several problems associated with the dose-escalating design in assessing dose-response relationshipsPl] In this type of study, the dose is increased at regular intervals and analysis of the results usually includes responders and non­responders.

Noncompliant patients will constitute a large percentage of the nonresponders and, in this type of design, will receive the highest dose. This re­sults in higher doses being recommended in early drug development with an increased risk of ad­verse effects. In]

3. ConclUSions

There is a need for more studies to investigate the duration of action of antihypertensive agents, in particular the effects of partial compliance, e.g. missing 1 or 2 doses and then resuming therapy. Physicians should be aware of the fact that many of their patients are noncompliant or partially com­pliant. Attempts should be made to improve com­pliance by emphasising the importance of taking antihypertensive medications regularly and the fact that treatment will probably be indefinite. Where possible, the dosage regimen should be sim­plified. However, only drugs with a duration of action exceeding 24 hours should be recommended for once-daily administration.

References I. Sackett DL. Preface. In: Sackett DL, Haynes RB, editors. Com­

pliance with therapeutic regimens. Baltimore and London: John Hopkins University Press, 1976: xi-xiv

2. Finnerty FA, Mattie EC. Hypertension in the inner city: analysis of clinic dropouts. Circulation 1973; 47: 73

3. Engelland AL, Alderman MH, Powell HB. Blood pressure con­trol in private practice: a case report. Am J Public Health 1979; 69: 25-9

4. Gillum RF, Neutra RR, Stason WB, et al. Determinants of drop­out rate among hypertensive patients in an urban clinic. J Community Health 1979; 5: 94-100

5. Caldwell JR, Cobb S, Dowling MD, et al. The dropout problem in antihypertensive treatment: a pilot study of social and emo­tional factors influencing a patient's ability to follow antihy­pertensive treatment. J Chron Dis 1970; 22: 579-92

© Adis International Limited. All rights reserved.

193

6. Degoulet P, Menard J, Vu H, et al. Factors predictive of atten­dance at clinic and blood pressure control in hypertensive patients. BMJ 1983; 287: 88-93

7. Enlund H. Measuring patient compliance in antihypertensive therapy - some methodological aspects. J Clin Hosp Pharm 1982; 7: 43-51

8. Inui T, Carter W, Pecoraro R, et al. Variations in patient compliance with common long-term drugs. Med Care 1980; 18: 986-93

9. Hershey J, Morton B, Braithwaite-Davis J, et al. Patient com­pliance with antihypertensive medication. Am J Public Health 1980; 70: 1081-89

10. Peterson G, Laxman A, McLean S, et al. Compliance and clin­ical response in hypertension. Med J Aust 1981; 2: 148-50

II. Inui TS, Yourtee EL, Williamson Jw. Improved outcomes in hypertension after physician tutorials: a controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 1976; 84: 646

12. Wagner EH, Truesdale RA, Warner JT. Compliance, treatment practices and blood pressure control: community survey find­ings. J Chron Dis 1981; 34: 519

13. Gordon M, Kass M. Validity of standard compliance measures in glaucoma compared with an electronic eye monitor. In: Cramer J, Spilker B, editors. Patient compliance in medical practice and clinical trials. New York: Raven Press, 1991: 163-73

14. Sackett D, Haynes R, Gibson S, et al. Randomized clinical trial of strategies for improving medication compliance in primary hypertension. Lancet 1975; I: 1205-7

15. Rudd P, Byyny R, Zachary R, et al. The natural history of med­ication compliance in a drug trial: limitations of pill counts. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1989; 46: 169-76

16. Lowenthal D, Briggs W, Mutterpere, R, et al. Patient compli­ance for antihypertensive medication: the usefulness of urine assays. Curr Ther Res 1976; 13: 405-9

17. Prinoth M, Spahn H, Mutschler E. The development of reliable compliance tests for antihypertensive drugs. Eur J Clin Phar­maco11986; 29: 535-9

18. Caldwell J, Frade P, Reddy P, et al. An evaluation of a new patient compliance index using plasma propranolol levels. J Chron Dis 1984; 37: 689-98

19. Feely M, Cooke J, Price D, et al. Low-dose phenobarbitone as an indicator of compliance with drug therapy. Br J Clin Phar­maco11987; 24: 77-83

20. Hunter Hypertension Research Group. Metoprolol or hydro­chlorothiazide in patients with hypertension aged 60-75 years with special reference to assessment of compliance. Med J Aust 1986; 145: 521-3

21. Rudd P, Ahmed S, Zachary V. et al. Improved compliance meas­ures: applications in an ambulatory hypertensive drug trial. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1990; 48: 676-85

22. Eisen S, Woodward R, Miller D, et al. The effect of medication compliance on the control of hypertension. J Gen Intern Med 1987; 2: 298-305

23. Beard K, Bulpitt C, Mascie-Taylor H, et al. Management of elderly patients with sustained hypertension. BMJ 1992; 304: 412-6

24. Mallion J, Meilhac B, Tremel F, et al. Use of a microprocessor­equipped tablet box in monitoring compliance with antihy­pertensive treatment. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1992; 19 Suppl. 2: S41-8

25. Eisen A, Miller D, Woodward R, et al. The effect of prescribed daily dose frequency on patient medication compliance. Arch Intern Med 1990; 150: 1881-4

Drugs 1996 Aug; 52 (2)

194

26. Mengden T, Binswanger B, Spiihler T, et a!. The use of self­measured blood pressure determinations in assessing dynam­ics of drug compliance in a study with amlodipine once a day, morning versus evening. J Hypertens 1993; II: 1403-11

27. Kruse W, Rampmaier J, Ullrich G, et al. Patterns of drug com­pliance with medications to be taken once and twice daily assessed by continuous electronic monitoring in primary care. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 1994; 32: 452-7

28. Waeber B, Erne P, Saxenhofer H, et a!. Use of drugs with more than a twenty-four hour duration of action. J Hypertens 1994; 12 Supp!. 8: S67-71

29. SHEP Co-operative Research Group. Prevention of stroke by antihypertensive drug treatment in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension: final results of Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP). JAMA 1991; 265: 3255-64

30. MacMahon SW, Cutler JA, Furberg CD, et a!. The effects of drug treatment for hypertension on morbidity and mortality from cardiovascular disease: a review of randomised control­led trials. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 1986; 29 Supp!. I: 99-118

31. Dahlof B, Lindholm LH, Hansson L, et a!. Morbidity and mor­tality in the Swedish trial in old patients with hypertension (STOP-hypertension). Lancet 1991; 338: 1281-5

32. Collins R, Peto R, MacMahon S, et a!. Blood pressure, stroke and coronary heart disease. Pt 2. Short-term reductions in blood pressure: overview of randomised drug trials in their epidemiological context. Lancet 1990; 335: 827-38

33. Thiirmer HL, Lund-Larsen PG, Tverdal A. Is blood pressure treatment as effective in a population setting as in controlled trials? Results from a prospective study. J Hypertens 1994; 12: 481-90

34. Lip GYH, Beever M, Beever G. The failure of malignant hy­pertension to decline: a survey of 24 years experience in a multi-racial population in England. J Hypertens 1994; 12: 1297-305

35. Maronde R, Chan L, Larsen F, et a!. Underutilization of antihy­pertensive drugs and associated hospitalization. Med Care 1989; 27 (12): 1159-66

36. Pauly M. The changing health care environment. Am J Med 1986; 81 Supp!. 6C: 3-8

37. Sullivan S, Kreling 0, Hazlet T. Noncompliance with medica­tion regimens and subsequent hospitalisations: a literature analysis and cost of hospitalisation estimate. J Res Pharm Econ 1990; 2 (2): 19-31

38. Houston M, Hodge R. Beta-adrenergic blocker withdrawal syn­dromes in hypertension and other cardiovascular diseases. Am HeartJ 1988; 116: 515-23

39. Alderman E, Coltart 0, Wettach G, et a!. Coronary artery syn­dromes after sudden propranolol withdrawa!. Ann Intern Med 1974; 81: 625

40. Psaty B, Koepsell T, Wagner E, et a!. The relative risk ofincident coronary heart disease associated with recently stopping the use of j3-blockers. JAMA 1990; 263: 1653-57

41. Garbus S, Weber M, Priest R, et a!. The abrupt discontinuation of antihypertensive treatment. J Clin Pharmacol 1979; 17: 476-86

42. Reid J, Wing L, Dargie H, et a!. Clonidine withdrawal in hyper­tension: changes in blood pressure and plasma and urinary noradrenaline. Lancet 1977; I: 1171-6

43. Stewart M, Burns J. Clonidine: rebound hypertension. Drug Intell Clin Pharm 1988; 22: 573

44. Bailey R, Neale T. Rapid clonidine withdrawal with blood pressure overshoot exaggerated by j3-blockade. BMJ 1976; i: 942-3

© Adls Internotionollimited. All rights reserved.

Girvin & Johnston

45. Rudd P, Ahmed S, Zachary V, et a!. Issues in patient compliance: the search for therapeutic sufficiency. Cardiology 1992; 80 Supp!. I: 2-10

46. Urquhart J. Patient compliance as an explanatory variable in four selected cardiovascular studies. In: Cramer J, Spilker B, editors. Patient compliance in medical practice and clinical trials. New York: Raven Press, 1991; 301-2

47. Levy G. A pharmacokinetic perspective on medicament non­compliance. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1993; 54: 242-4

48. Lipicky R. Trough: peak ratio; the rationale behind the United States Food and Drug Administration recommendations. J Hypertens 1994; 12 Supp!. 8: S17-9

49. Meredith P, Elliott H. Antihypertensive treatment and trough: peak ratio: general considerations. J Hypertens 1994; 12 Supp!. 8: S79-83

50. Lutterodt A, Nattel S, McLeod P. Duration of antihypertensive effect of a single daily dose of hydrochlorothiazide. C1in Phar­macol Ther 1980; 27: 324-7

51. Morgan T, Adam W, Hodgson N, et a!. Duration of effect of different diuretics. Med J Aust 1979; 2: 315-6

52. Johnson B, Whelton A, McMahon G. Betaxolol vs atenolol in hypertension: a comparison of efficacy, duration of response, and effects of withdrawal [abstract]. Am J Hypertens 1990; 3 Supp!. II: 121A

53. Leonetti G, Terzoli L, Bianchini C, et a!. Time-course of the anti-hypertensive action of atenolol: comparison of responses to first dose and to maintained oral administration. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1980; 18: 365-74

54. Amery A, DePlaen J, Lijnen P, et a!. Relationship between blood level of atenolol and pharmacologic effect. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1977; 21: 691-9

55. Neutel J, Schnaper H, Cheung 0, et a!. Antihypertensive effects of beta-blockers administered once daily: 24-hour measure­ments. Am HeartJ 1990; 120: 166-71

56. Andersson 0, Hedner T, Nyberg G. Acute and long-term anti­hypertensive effect of bopindolol once daily or once weekly. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1986; 8 Supp!. 6: S74-6

57. Takata Y, Yoshizumi 1~ Ito Y, et a!. Effect of administration and withdrawal of doxazosin on ambulatory blood pressure in pa­tients with essential hypertension. Angiology 1995; 46: 11-18

58. Pickering G. Night-time dosing of doxazosin has peak effect on morning ambulatory blood pressure. Results of the HALT study. Am J Hypertens 1994; 7: 844-7

59. Hwang Y, Yen H. Amlodipine - once daily monotherapy in sys­temic hypertension. Am J Cardiol 1994; 73: 1230-32

60. Zanchetti A, Bianchi L, Amigoni S, et a!. Antihypertensive ef­fects of nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system on clinic and ambulatory blood pressures in essential hyperten­sives. J Hypertens 1993; II Supp!. 5: S334-5

61. Myers M. Dihydropyridine calcium antagonists and the trough : peak ratio: focus on adverse effects. J Hypertens 1994; 12 Supp!. 8: S73-7

62. Meredith P, Reid J. Differences between calcium antagonists: duration of action and trough to peak ratio. J Hypertens 1993; 11 Supp!. I: S21-6

63. Zannad F. Trandolapril: how does it differ from other angioten­sin converting enzyme inhibitors? Drugs 1993; 46 Supp!. 2: 172-82

64. Vaur L, Dutrey-Dupagne C, Boussac J, et a!. Differential effects of a missed dose of trandolapril and enalapril on blood pres­sure control in hypertensive patients. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1995; 26: 127-31

Drugs 1996 Aug: 52 (2)

Noncompliance with Antihypertensives

65. Meredith P, Elliott H. Therapeutic coverage: reducing the risks of partial compliance. Br J Clin Pract Symp Suppl 1994; 73: 13-17

66. Donnelly R, Elliott H, Meredith P, et al. Nifedipine: individual responses and concentration-effect relationships. Hyperten­sion 1988; 12: 443-9

67. Meredith P, Elliott H, AhmedJ, et al. Age and the antihyperten­sive efficacy of verapamil: an integrated pharmacodyamic­pharmacokinetic approach. J Hypertens 1987; 5 Suppl. 5: S219-21

68. Donnelly R, Elliott H, Meredith P, et al. Concentration-effect relationships and individual responses to doxazosin in essen­tial hypertension. Br J CIin Pharmacol 1989; 28: 517-26

69. Elliott H, Donnelly R, Meredith P, et al. Predictability of anti­hypertensive responsiveness and a-adrenoceptor antagonism

195

during prazosin treatment. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1989; 46: 576-83

70. Donnelly R, Meredith P, Elliott H, et al. Kinetic-dynamic rela­tions and individual responses to enalapril. Hypertension 1990; 15: 301-9

71. Johnston GO. Dose-response relationships with antihyperten­sive drugs. Pharmacol Ther 1992; 55: 53-93

72. Johnston GD. Selecting appropriate antihypertensive drug dos­ages. Drugs 1994; 47 (4): 567-75

Correspondence and reprints: Dr CD. Johnston, Depart­ment of Therapeutics and Pharmacology, The Queen's Uni­versity of Belfast, The Whitla Medical Building, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast BT9 7BL, Northern Ireland.

Fourth International Congress on

Essential Fatty Acids and Eicosanoids Date: 20-24 July 1997

Venue: Edinburgh, Scotland

For further information, please contact: Vicki GrantlWendy Adesegun

clo Meeting Makers 50 George Skeet Glasgow Gl1QA

SCOTLAND

Tel.: +44 (0) 141 553 1930 Fax: +44 (0) 141 552 0511 e-mail: [email protected]

© Adis International Limited. All rights reserved. Drugs 1996 Aug: 52 (2)