CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · J Neurosci Rural Pract 2020; 11(04): 636-639
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1715991
Brief Report

Simultaneous Use of Two Different Tools to Assess Compliance with Antiepileptic Drugs: Experience in A Community-Based Study

Paramjit Singh
1  Department of Pharmacology, Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana, Punjab, India
,
Kanchan Gupta
1  Department of Pharmacology, Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana, Punjab, India
,
Gagandeep Singh
2  Department of Neurology, Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana, Punjab, India
,
Sandeep Kaushal
1  Department of Pharmacology, Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana, Punjab, India
› Author Affiliations
Funding None.

Abstract

Objective Antiepileptic drug (AED) therapy remains the primary form of treatment for epilepsy, noncompliance to which can result in breakthrough seizure, emergency department visits, fractures, head injuries, and increased mortality. Various tools like self-report measures, pill-counts, medication refills, and frequency of seizures can assess compliance with varying extent. Thus, assessment of compliance with AEDs is crucial to be studied.

Materials and Methods Compliance was assessed using pill-count and Morisky medication adherence scale (MMAS) during home visits. A pill-count (pills dispensed–pills remaining)/(pills to be consumed between two visits) value of 0.85 to ≤1.15 was recorded as appropriate compliance. Underdose (<0.85) and overdose (>1.15) was labeled as noncompliance. Score of 1 was given to each positive answer in MMAS. Score of ≥1 was labeled as noncompliance.

Statistical analysis: Relationship of demographic factors between compliant and noncompliant patients was analyzed using Chi-square test (SPSS version 21.0, IBM). Rest of the data was analyzed with the help of descriptive statistics using Microsoft Excel. p< 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results Out of 105 patients, 54 patients were noncompliant with both pill-count and MMAS. 10 patients were noncompliant with pill-count only, while 10 were noncompliant with MMAS.

Conclusion Both tools complement each other when used in combination, as use of a single tool was not able to completely detect compliance.



Publication History

Publication Date:
04 September 2020 (online)

© 2020. Association for Helping Neurosurgical Sick People. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India