OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to evaluate clinically the acceptability of the IDAS II (Intelligent Drug Administration System), a new electronic device that enables drug adherence monitoring. METHODS:IDAS II was compared to another electronic monitor, the Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS) in a randomised two-way cross-over study involving 24 hypertensive patients treated with irbesartan. Patients used each device for 2 months. The main parameter of evaluation was the patients' opinion on both devices. Rates of adherence and blood pressure were also assessed. RESULTS: Most patients considered both devices to be reliable reminders (IDAS II: 75%;MEMS: 84%, p = ns). Ten patients (42%) preferred the MEMS, while 11 (46%) preferred the IDAS II; three (12%) expressed no preference. Patients found the MEMS device easier to use than the IDAS device (p < 0.001) but appreciated the IDAS blister packs better than the MEMS bulk packaging (p < 0.01). Over the 4-month period, the median "taking adherence" was excellent (99.2%) and comparable with both devices. However, the regularity of drug intake timing was higher with the IDAS II (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION:IDAS II, a new electronic device enabling drug adherence monitoring without reconditioning of the drugs appears to be a well-accepted device. Overall, practicability and acceptability of the IDAS II and the MEMS device were similar. Thus, IDAS II could be a useful tool for the management of long-term therapies.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to evaluate clinically the acceptability of the IDAS II (Intelligent Drug Administration System), a new electronic device that enables drug adherence monitoring. METHODS:IDAS II was compared to another electronic monitor, the Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS) in a randomised two-way cross-over study involving 24 hypertensivepatients treated with irbesartan. Patients used each device for 2 months. The main parameter of evaluation was the patients' opinion on both devices. Rates of adherence and blood pressure were also assessed. RESULTS: Most patients considered both devices to be reliable reminders (IDAS II: 75%;MEMS: 84%, p = ns). Ten patients (42%) preferred the MEMS, while 11 (46%) preferred the IDAS II; three (12%) expressed no preference. Patients found the MEMS device easier to use than the IDAS device (p < 0.001) but appreciated the IDAS blister packs better than the MEMS bulk packaging (p < 0.01). Over the 4-month period, the median "taking adherence" was excellent (99.2%) and comparable with both devices. However, the regularity of drug intake timing was higher with the IDAS II (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION:IDAS II, a new electronic device enabling drug adherence monitoring without reconditioning of the drugs appears to be a well-accepted device. Overall, practicability and acceptability of the IDAS II and the MEMS device were similar. Thus, IDAS II could be a useful tool for the management of long-term therapies.
Authors: Nicolas Bertholet; Bernard Favrat; Claire-Lise Fallab-Stubi; Hans R. Brunner; Michel Burnier Journal: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 3.738
Authors: Marcia Vervloet; Annemiek J Linn; Julia C M van Weert; Dinny H de Bakker; Marcel L Bouvy; Liset van Dijk Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2012-04-25 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Vicki S Conn; Todd M Ruppar; Keith C Chan; Jacqueline Dunbar-Jacob; Ginette A Pepper; Sabina De Geest Journal: Curr Med Res Opin Date: 2014-11-04 Impact factor: 2.580
Authors: Sarah L Cutrona; Niteesh K Choudhry; Margaret Stedman; Amber Servi; Joshua N Liberman; Troyen Brennan; Michael A Fischer; M Alan Brookhart; William H Shrank Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-05-13 Impact factor: 5.128