高血压和心绞痛患者服药时间。对照监测研究]。

P Erne, H Saxenhofer, B Waeber, G Heynen
{"title":"高血压和心绞痛患者服药时间。对照监测研究]。","authors":"P Erne,&nbsp;H Saxenhofer,&nbsp;B Waeber,&nbsp;G Heynen","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":21438,"journal":{"name":"Schweizerische Rundschau fur Medizin Praxis = Revue suisse de medecine Praxis","volume":"83 39","pages":"1079-83"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1994-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Time of drug intake in hypertension and angina pectoris. A controlled monitoring study].\",\"authors\":\"P Erne,&nbsp;H Saxenhofer,&nbsp;B Waeber,&nbsp;G Heynen\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21438,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Schweizerische Rundschau fur Medizin Praxis = Revue suisse de medecine Praxis\",\"volume\":\"83 39\",\"pages\":\"1079-83\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1994-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Schweizerische Rundschau fur Medizin Praxis = Revue suisse de medecine Praxis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Schweizerische Rundschau fur Medizin Praxis = Revue suisse de medecine Praxis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在全科环境下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通过电子监测获得的BID或QD方案的依从性数据。所有患者在第一个月采用BID方案(硝苯地平SR),另一个月改为QD方案(氨氯地平)。当从BID转为QD方案时,30%的患者服药依从性(即正确给药天数的比例)得到改善(95%置信区间19至41%,p < 0.001),但与此同时,1天或1天以上不给药的患者数量增加了15%(95%置信区间5至25%,p < 0.02)。无论何种给药方案,约8%的患者的依从率较低。实际剂量间隔用于估计各种假设药物作用时间的药物活性不理想时期的程度和时间,似乎只有当所有患者的活性持续时间超过剂量间隔时,QD方案在依从性方面的明显优势才具有临床意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
[Time of drug intake in hypertension and angina pectoris. A controlled monitoring study].

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
[Interventional cardiology]. [Pallor]. [Leukopenia]. [In Process Citation] [What is your diagnosis? Henoch-Schoenlein rheumatoid purpura].
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1