PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10226243

Errors in trough: peak ratio determinations induced by patient behaviour.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Trough: peak ratio is often used to evaluate the duration of antihypertensive action. Whatever the method of measurement chosen, trough effect has to be measured 24 h after the last drug intake for a once daily regimen. Peak effect is usually measured 4-6 h after drug intake. If patients' compliance to therapeutic instructions is perfect, then the 'intrinsic' trough: peak ratio of the drug is equal to the measured trough: peak ratio. Some patients do not follow these instructions, leading to biases in the evaluation of the ratio. For trough evaluation, all patients (N) are supposed to take the last dose of the drug the day before blood pressure measurement. However, if some patients (n1) wrongly take the drug in the morning of the visit, they will be evaluated at peak (type A error). For peak evaluation, all patients (N) are supposed to take the drug a few hours before blood pressure measurement. If some patients (n2) miss their morning dose, they will be evaluated at trough (type B error). METHODS: In the MACH 1 study, the use of an electronic pill count monitor allowed us to quantify n1/N and n2/N. A total of 452 hypertensive patients were randomly assigned to two groups. Patients in group 1 received written instructions to take their last dose during the morning of the day before the visit, whereas patients of group 2 had to take their last dose on the morning of the visit. RESULTS: Electronic pill-box recording revealed that 32.9%: of patients in group 1 committed type A error, whereas 27.7% of patients in group 2 committed type B error. The resulting 'pill-box corrected' trough: peak ratio was lower (87.5% for diastolic blood pressure and 93.1% for systolic blood pressure) than the uncorrected trough: peak ratio (95.2% for diastolic blood pressure and 96.0% for systolic blood pressure) of the population. CONCLUSION: The random behaviour of patients, with respect to treatment compliance, results in a systematic overestimation of the measured trough: peak ratio. The computation of this ratio may be optimized by improving patient compliance. Alternatively, only data from a patient subpopulation that complies with the therapeutic protocol, as reported by readings from electronic pill boxes, should be taken into account for its calculation.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

C Dutrey-Dupagne, L Vaur, N Genès, JM Mallion, P Meredith, F Elkik. 1996. Errors in trough: peak ratio determinations induced by patient behaviour.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10226243/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗