Noncompliance May Render Migraine Prophylaxis Useless, But Once-Daily Regimens Are Better
Medicines work better if taken, which must be true of migraine prophylaxis. There is evidence that compliance with regular medication can be badly deficient. To assess how serious the problem might be in routine migraine management, we undertook a covert observational 2-month survey in a specialist...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Cephalalgia 1998-01, Vol.18 (1), p.52-56 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 56 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 52 |
container_title | Cephalalgia |
container_volume | 18 |
creator | Mulleners, WM Whitmarsh, TE Steiner, TJ |
description | Medicines work better if taken, which must be true of migraine prophylaxis. There is evidence that compliance with regular medication can be badly deficient. To assess how serious the problem might be in routine migraine management, we undertook a covert observational 2-month survey in a specialist headache clinic using objective measures of compliance. Subjects were 38 patients needing prophylaxis with medication prescribed once (od), twice (bd), or three times daily (tds). Medication was dispensed, unknown to them, in Medication Event Monitoring Systems (MEMS) to record openings in real time. Number, timing, and pattern of actual openings were compared with what was expected. Compliance rates averaged 66%, although returned pill counts indicated 91%. A substantial and significant difference was shown between od and bd or tds regimens. Measures of dosing interval—used-on-schedule rate and therapeutic coverage—averaged between 44% and 71%. Once-daily treatment was associated with a used-on-schedule rate more than double those of multiple daily dosing, but still only 66%. We conclude that routine use of drug prophylaxis in migraine may be so seriously undermined by poor compliance that it has little chance of efficacy. Returned-pill counting is inadequate for compliance assessment. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1046/j.1468-2982.1998.1801052.x |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_79894024</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1046_j.1468-2982.1998.1801052.x</sage_id><sourcerecordid>79894024</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4512-5cc04cd25ac0f89dab0b36fc45977d8fe308c743082483c6b3d1754b0cc0435f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVkMtu2zAQRYmgReom-YQCRBddVepQpCSqu8TNC7CTIEgWXREUNXJp6OGQFmr_fShYyDrZkCDunDvEIeQ7g5iByH6tYyYyGSWFTGJWFDJmEhikSbw7IrO36BOZAec8YpCIL-Sr92sASDPIjslxkQHLknRG_t71nenbTWN1Z5Au9Z4-Yleho0u7ctp2SB9cv_m3b_TOevrssUHvf9KLYUvvAxH90bYZmZVtsfP03CG9wO0W3Sn5XOvG49l0n5Dnq8un-U20uL--nZ8vIiNSlkSpMSBMlaTaQC2LSpdQ8qwOYZHnlayRgzS5CGciJDdZySuWp6KEkeNpzU_Ij0PvxvUvA_qtaq032DS6w37wKi9kIYKCMPj7MGhc773DWm2cbbXbKwZq9KrWapSnRnlq9Komr2oX4G_TlqFssXpDJ5Ehnx_y_7bB_Qea1fzy4WZ6hZb80OL1CtW6H1wX1L3nf6_mX5gG</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>79894024</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Noncompliance May Render Migraine Prophylaxis Useless, But Once-Daily Regimens Are Better</title><source>Access via SAGE</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Journals</source><creator>Mulleners, WM ; Whitmarsh, TE ; Steiner, TJ</creator><creatorcontrib>Mulleners, WM ; Whitmarsh, TE ; Steiner, TJ</creatorcontrib><description>Medicines work better if taken, which must be true of migraine prophylaxis. There is evidence that compliance with regular medication can be badly deficient. To assess how serious the problem might be in routine migraine management, we undertook a covert observational 2-month survey in a specialist headache clinic using objective measures of compliance. Subjects were 38 patients needing prophylaxis with medication prescribed once (od), twice (bd), or three times daily (tds). Medication was dispensed, unknown to them, in Medication Event Monitoring Systems (MEMS) to record openings in real time. Number, timing, and pattern of actual openings were compared with what was expected. Compliance rates averaged 66%, although returned pill counts indicated 91%. A substantial and significant difference was shown between od and bd or tds regimens. Measures of dosing interval—used-on-schedule rate and therapeutic coverage—averaged between 44% and 71%. Once-daily treatment was associated with a used-on-schedule rate more than double those of multiple daily dosing, but still only 66%. We conclude that routine use of drug prophylaxis in migraine may be so seriously undermined by poor compliance that it has little chance of efficacy. Returned-pill counting is inadequate for compliance assessment.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0333-1024</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1468-2982</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1046/j.1468-2982.1998.1801052.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 9601625</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject><![CDATA[Administration, Oral ; Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic - administration & dosage ; Atenolol - administration & dosage ; Compliance ; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug ; dosing regimen ; Drug Administration Schedule ; Drug Monitoring ; efficacy ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; medication event monitoring systems ; Methysergide - administration & dosage ; Middle Aged ; Migraine Disorders - prevention & control ; migraine prophylaxis ; Pizotyline - administration & dosage ; Propranolol - administration & dosage ; Sympatholytics - administration & dosage ; Treatment Refusal ; Vasoconstrictor Agents - administration & dosage ; Vasodilator Agents - administration & dosage]]></subject><ispartof>Cephalalgia, 1998-01, Vol.18 (1), p.52-56</ispartof><rights>1998 International Headache Society</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4512-5cc04cd25ac0f89dab0b36fc45977d8fe308c743082483c6b3d1754b0cc0435f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4512-5cc04cd25ac0f89dab0b36fc45977d8fe308c743082483c6b3d1754b0cc0435f3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1046/j.1468-2982.1998.1801052.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1046/j.1468-2982.1998.1801052.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,21819,27924,27925,43621,43622,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9601625$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mulleners, WM</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Whitmarsh, TE</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steiner, TJ</creatorcontrib><title>Noncompliance May Render Migraine Prophylaxis Useless, But Once-Daily Regimens Are Better</title><title>Cephalalgia</title><addtitle>Cephalalgia</addtitle><description>Medicines work better if taken, which must be true of migraine prophylaxis. There is evidence that compliance with regular medication can be badly deficient. To assess how serious the problem might be in routine migraine management, we undertook a covert observational 2-month survey in a specialist headache clinic using objective measures of compliance. Subjects were 38 patients needing prophylaxis with medication prescribed once (od), twice (bd), or three times daily (tds). Medication was dispensed, unknown to them, in Medication Event Monitoring Systems (MEMS) to record openings in real time. Number, timing, and pattern of actual openings were compared with what was expected. Compliance rates averaged 66%, although returned pill counts indicated 91%. A substantial and significant difference was shown between od and bd or tds regimens. Measures of dosing interval—used-on-schedule rate and therapeutic coverage—averaged between 44% and 71%. Once-daily treatment was associated with a used-on-schedule rate more than double those of multiple daily dosing, but still only 66%. We conclude that routine use of drug prophylaxis in migraine may be so seriously undermined by poor compliance that it has little chance of efficacy. Returned-pill counting is inadequate for compliance assessment.</description><subject>Administration, Oral</subject><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Analgesics, Non-Narcotic - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Atenolol - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Compliance</subject><subject>Dose-Response Relationship, Drug</subject><subject>dosing regimen</subject><subject>Drug Administration Schedule</subject><subject>Drug Monitoring</subject><subject>efficacy</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>medication event monitoring systems</subject><subject>Methysergide - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Migraine Disorders - prevention & control</subject><subject>migraine prophylaxis</subject><subject>Pizotyline - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Propranolol - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Sympatholytics - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Treatment Refusal</subject><subject>Vasoconstrictor Agents - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Vasodilator Agents - administration & dosage</subject><issn>0333-1024</issn><issn>1468-2982</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1998</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqVkMtu2zAQRYmgReom-YQCRBddVepQpCSqu8TNC7CTIEgWXREUNXJp6OGQFmr_fShYyDrZkCDunDvEIeQ7g5iByH6tYyYyGSWFTGJWFDJmEhikSbw7IrO36BOZAec8YpCIL-Sr92sASDPIjslxkQHLknRG_t71nenbTWN1Z5Au9Z4-Yleho0u7ctp2SB9cv_m3b_TOevrssUHvf9KLYUvvAxH90bYZmZVtsfP03CG9wO0W3Sn5XOvG49l0n5Dnq8un-U20uL--nZ8vIiNSlkSpMSBMlaTaQC2LSpdQ8qwOYZHnlayRgzS5CGciJDdZySuWp6KEkeNpzU_Ij0PvxvUvA_qtaq032DS6w37wKi9kIYKCMPj7MGhc773DWm2cbbXbKwZq9KrWapSnRnlq9Komr2oX4G_TlqFssXpDJ5Ehnx_y_7bB_Qea1fzy4WZ6hZb80OL1CtW6H1wX1L3nf6_mX5gG</recordid><startdate>199801</startdate><enddate>199801</enddate><creator>Mulleners, WM</creator><creator>Whitmarsh, TE</creator><creator>Steiner, TJ</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Blackwell Science Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>199801</creationdate><title>Noncompliance May Render Migraine Prophylaxis Useless, But Once-Daily Regimens Are Better</title><author>Mulleners, WM ; Whitmarsh, TE ; Steiner, TJ</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4512-5cc04cd25ac0f89dab0b36fc45977d8fe308c743082483c6b3d1754b0cc0435f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1998</creationdate><topic>Administration, Oral</topic><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Analgesics, Non-Narcotic - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Atenolol - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Compliance</topic><topic>Dose-Response Relationship, Drug</topic><topic>dosing regimen</topic><topic>Drug Administration Schedule</topic><topic>Drug Monitoring</topic><topic>efficacy</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>medication event monitoring systems</topic><topic>Methysergide - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Migraine Disorders - prevention & control</topic><topic>migraine prophylaxis</topic><topic>Pizotyline - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Propranolol - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Sympatholytics - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Treatment Refusal</topic><topic>Vasoconstrictor Agents - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Vasodilator Agents - administration & dosage</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mulleners, WM</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Whitmarsh, TE</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steiner, TJ</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Cephalalgia</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mulleners, WM</au><au>Whitmarsh, TE</au><au>Steiner, TJ</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Noncompliance May Render Migraine Prophylaxis Useless, But Once-Daily Regimens Are Better</atitle><jtitle>Cephalalgia</jtitle><addtitle>Cephalalgia</addtitle><date>1998-01</date><risdate>1998</risdate><volume>18</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>52</spage><epage>56</epage><pages>52-56</pages><issn>0333-1024</issn><eissn>1468-2982</eissn><abstract>Medicines work better if taken, which must be true of migraine prophylaxis. There is evidence that compliance with regular medication can be badly deficient. To assess how serious the problem might be in routine migraine management, we undertook a covert observational 2-month survey in a specialist headache clinic using objective measures of compliance. Subjects were 38 patients needing prophylaxis with medication prescribed once (od), twice (bd), or three times daily (tds). Medication was dispensed, unknown to them, in Medication Event Monitoring Systems (MEMS) to record openings in real time. Number, timing, and pattern of actual openings were compared with what was expected. Compliance rates averaged 66%, although returned pill counts indicated 91%. A substantial and significant difference was shown between od and bd or tds regimens. Measures of dosing interval—used-on-schedule rate and therapeutic coverage—averaged between 44% and 71%. Once-daily treatment was associated with a used-on-schedule rate more than double those of multiple daily dosing, but still only 66%. We conclude that routine use of drug prophylaxis in migraine may be so seriously undermined by poor compliance that it has little chance of efficacy. Returned-pill counting is inadequate for compliance assessment.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>9601625</pmid><doi>10.1046/j.1468-2982.1998.1801052.x</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0333-1024 |
ispartof | Cephalalgia, 1998-01, Vol.18 (1), p.52-56 |
issn | 0333-1024 1468-2982 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_79894024 |
source | Access via SAGE; MEDLINE; Wiley Journals |
subjects | Administration, Oral Adolescent Adult Aged Analgesics, Non-Narcotic - administration & dosage Atenolol - administration & dosage Compliance Dose-Response Relationship, Drug dosing regimen Drug Administration Schedule Drug Monitoring efficacy Female Humans Male medication event monitoring systems Methysergide - administration & dosage Middle Aged Migraine Disorders - prevention & control migraine prophylaxis Pizotyline - administration & dosage Propranolol - administration & dosage Sympatholytics - administration & dosage Treatment Refusal Vasoconstrictor Agents - administration & dosage Vasodilator Agents - administration & dosage |
title | Noncompliance May Render Migraine Prophylaxis Useless, But Once-Daily Regimens Are Better |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T00%3A13%3A04IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Noncompliance%20May%20Render%20Migraine%20Prophylaxis%20Useless,%20But%20Once-Daily%20Regimens%20Are%20Better&rft.jtitle=Cephalalgia&rft.au=Mulleners,%20WM&rft.date=1998-01&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=52&rft.epage=56&rft.pages=52-56&rft.issn=0333-1024&rft.eissn=1468-2982&rft_id=info:doi/10.1046/j.1468-2982.1998.1801052.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E79894024%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=79894024&rft_id=info:pmid/9601625&rft_sage_id=10.1046_j.1468-2982.1998.1801052.x&rfr_iscdi=true |