Open AccessBenefit of serum drug monitoring complementing urine analysis to assess adherence to antihypertensive drugs in first-line therapy
Author(s) -
Sabrina Ritscher,
Milena Hoyer,
Coralie Georges,
Cora Wunder,
Pierre Wallemacq,
Alexandre Persu,
Nicholas Obermüller,
Stefan W. Toennes
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
plos one
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.99
H-Index - 332
ISSN - 1932-6203
DOI - 10.1371/journal.pone.0237383
Subject(s) - lercanidipine , medicine , amlodipine , candesartan , urine , pharmacokinetics , therapeutic drug monitoring , pharmacology , telmisartan , valsartan , antihypertensive drug , drug , angiotensin ii , blood pressure
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.