Why the study?
Hypertension is rising alongside obesity and metabolic syndrome, increasing prescriptions for ARBs and CCBs. The authors sought to evaluate a serum therapeutic drug monitoring method using cut-offs to assess adherence and compare it with established urine screening.
Does serum drug monitoring using LC-MS/MS improve the accuracy of adherence assessment compared to qualitative urine analysis in patients taking antihypertensive drugs?
Does serum drug monitoring using LC-MS/MS improve the accuracy of adherence assessment compared to qualitative urine analysis in patients taking antihypertensive drugs?
Serum drug monitoring with individually calculated dose-related concentrations is more accurate than qualitative urine analysis for assessing adherence to antihypertensive drugs, particularly for drugs with low renal excretion or high metabolism.
TDM cut-offs may support adherence assessment in hypertensive inpatients; leaves open prospective validation and outcome linkage.
With obesity having doubled in the last decade, hypertension is on the rise. In one-third of hypertensive patients the metabolic syndrome is present. This might be one factor for the increasing number of prescriptions for angiotensin receptor blockers and calcium-channel blockers besides a more favorable risk-to-benefit ratio. The aim of the present study was to evaluate a therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) method for assessment of adherence based on cut-offs in inpatients and to compare it to an established urine drug screening in outpatients. A method for quantification of calcium-channel blockers and angiotensin receptor blockers using high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometric analysis (LC-MS/MS) was developed and validated. The method was applied to serum samples of 32 patients under supervised medication to establish cut-off values for adherence assessment based on dose-related concentrations (DRC, calculated from pharmacokinetic data). Furthermore, corresponding urine and blood samples of 42 outpatients without supervised medication were analysed and the results compared with regard to adherence assessment. All serum concentrations measured for amlodipine (n = 40), lercanidipine (n = 14), candesartan (n = 10), telmisartan (n = 4) and valsartan (n = 10) in inpatients were above the patient specific lower DRC confirming adherence. Of 42 outpatients the identification of analytes in urine as well as the quantification in serum exhibited differing results. According to urinalysis, adherence was demonstrated in only 87.0% of prescriptions, compared to 91.3% for serum analyses. Differences were observed for amlodipine, lercanidipine and candesartan which can be explained by a higher specificity of the serum analysis approach due to pharmacokinetics. The present study confirms that assessing adherence based on serum drug concentrations with individually calculated lower DRCs is more accurate than using qualitative urine analysis. In particular, drugs with low bioavailability, low renal excretion or high metabolism rate such as lercanidipine and candesartan may lead to underestimation of adherence via urine analysis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ritscher et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: