Cited by 95Blood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesMedication Adherence and ComplianceCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention

The use of self-measured blood pressure determinations in assessing dynamics of drug compliance in a study with amlodipine once a day, morning versus evening

Mengden, Thomas, Binswanger, Benedikt, Spühler, Thomas, Weisser, Burkhard, Vetter, Wilhelm·1993·Journal of Hypertension

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To test whether the time of administration influences the therapeutic response to a calcium antagonist taken once a day. Also, the dynamics of drug compliance and its impact on blood pressure control were investigated. DESIGN: Twenty outpatients with mild-to-moderate hypertension were included in a randomized, placebo-controlled open study. In a crossover design, all of the patients received 5 mg amlodipine, either in the morning or in the evening, during two consecutive 4-week treatment periods. METHODS: Blood pressure was taken by casual measurement, ambulatory 24-h monitoring (SpaceLabs 90202) and self-measurement at home, performed with a semi-automatic oscillometric device during the whole study period. Compliance was assessed using the Medication-Event-Monitoring System (MEMS). RESULTS: Neither casual nor ambulatory day- or night-time readings detected a significant difference between morning and evening administration. However, self-measurement documented significantly greater blood pressure reductions for morning than for evening administration. The MEMS showed different compliance on the days of ambulatory monitoring (100% with both drug regimens) compared with the whole treatment period. The number of days with missed medication was thus significantly higher for the evening dosing regimen. The difference in self-measured blood pressure between the two regimens was lost if the days with missed medication were removed from the statistical analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Time of once-a-day amlodipine administration does not influence its efficacy for 24-h blood pressure control. Furthermore, the use of self-measurement and the MEMS may provide useful additional information on the pharmacodynamic impact of different dosing patterns in hypertensive patients.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00004872-199312000-00013

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mengden, T., Binswanger, B., Spühler, T., Weisser, B., & Vetter, W.
Affiliations
University Hospital Zurich (CH)
Venue
Journal of Hypertension
Published
1993-12
Volume
11
Issue
12
Pages
1403-1411
ISSN
0263-6352 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1992694553
Cited by
95
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 2
FWCI
2.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Hypertension (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Keywords
amlodipine, once-daily dosing, time of administration, hypertension, medication adherence, self-measured blood pressure, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, missed medication, calcium channel blockers, dosing patterns
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Blood Pressure, Blood Pressure Determination, Drug Administration Schedule, Female, Heart Rate, Humans, Hypertension, Male, Middle Aged, Monitoring, Physiologic, Patient Compliance, Self Administration, Self Care, Amlodipine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review