Τετάρτη, 7 Ιανουαρίου 2009

SOLUBLE IL-2 RCEPTORS IN DLBCL

Ann Oncol. 2008 Dec 12. [Epub ahead of print]Related Articles, LinkOut
Click here to read
Soluble interleukin-2 receptor retains prognostic value in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma receiving rituximab plus CHOP (RCHOP) therapy.

Ennishi D, Yokoyama M, Terui Y, Asai H, Sakajiri S, Mishima Y, Takahashi S, Komatsu H, Ikeda K, Takeuchi K, Tanimoto M, Hatake K.

Department of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Cancer Institute Hospital, Tokyo.

BACKGROUND: Soluble interleukin-2 receptor (SIL-2R) is known to be a prognostic parameter in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) receiving cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (CHOP) therapy. However, its prognostic value has not been well known since the introduction of rituximab. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated the prognostic impact of SIL-2R in 228 DLBCL patients, comparing 141 rituximab-combined CHOP (RCHOP)-treated patients with 87 CHOP-treated patients as a historical control. RESULTS: Patients with high serum SIL-2R showed significantly poorer event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) than patients with low SIL-2R in both the RCHOP group (2-year EFS, 66% versus 92%, P < p =" 0.005)" style="border-bottom: 1px dashed rgb(0, 102, 204); cursor: pointer;" class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1231353132_16">International Prognostic Index (IPI) and two-categorized IPI revealed that SIL-2R was an independent prognostic factor for EFS and OS in the RCHOP group as well as in the CHOP group. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that SIL-2R retains its prognostic value in the rituximab era. The prognostic value of SIL-2R in DLBCL patients receiving rituximab-combined chemotherapy should be reassessed on a larger scale and by long-term follow-up.

Τρίτη, 6 Ιανουαρίου 2009

GRADE 2 CIN

Nearly Half of Grade 2 Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasias Will Regress

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) Jan 05 - Approximately 40% of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) will regress within 2 years, according to a study published in the January issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

However, the same study found that CIN2 caused by human papillomavirus type 16 (HPV-16) is much less likely to regress.

Dr. Philip E. Castle of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda and colleagues used data from the Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance/Low-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions Triage Study (ALTS) to compare the cumulative incidences of CIN2, CIN3 or more severe diagnoses in the 2-year study.

ALTS was a multicenter, randomized trial comparing three management strategies for women referred for atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) or low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL).

The study population consisted of 3,488 women with ASC-US and 1,572 women with LSIL. There were 397 cases of CIN2 and 542 cases of CIN3 or more severe disease.

The three strategies were immediate colposcopy, HPV triage, or conservative management. In the HPV triage arm, women were referred to immediate colposcopy if they were HPV-positive at enrollment, if there was no information on HPV status at enrollment, or if cytology showed high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) at enrollment.

Dr. Castle and associates report no significant difference in the cumulative 2-year incidence of CIN3 or more severe disease between the study arms. The rate was 10.9% with conservative management, 10.3% with HPV triage and 10.9% with immediate colposcopy.

In contrast, there was a significant variation in the 2-year incidence of CIN2 between treatment arms. CIN2 incidence was 5.8% for women assigned to conservative management, 7.8% for women assigned to HPV triage, and 9.9% for women assigned to immediate colposcopy.

During the 2-year study period, there was an increasing number of women with CIN2 referred to colposcopy at baseline. The relative differences in incidence of CIN2, by study arm, among women who tested HPV-16 positive at baseline were less pronounced than women who tested positive for other high-risk-HPV genotypes.

"Nearly half of all CIN2, a diagnosis that is considered a precancerous diagnosis and is treated by excisional procedures, will regress without treatment, (although) CIN2 caused by HPV-16 is less likely to regress," Dr. Castle told Reuters Health.

"Thus, many women with CIN2 are being treated for benign lesions that are probably not precancerous. Because treatment has negative reproductive consequences (e.g., preterm delivery), improved management strategies for CIN2 to reduce unnecessary treatment while still identifying and treating women with precancerous lesions are needed."

"HPV-16-positive CIN2 seems less likely to regress, perhaps as the result of its greater tendency to persist and its greater oncogenic potential to progress to precancerous lesions than other HPV genotypes," Dr. Castle and colleagues write.

"When HPV genotyping from validated tests becomes routinely available, detection of HPV-16 may be a useful stratifier of risk for deciding the clinical management of CIN2 diagnoses."

"A clinical trial to determine the best management strategies for CIN2, akin to ALTS for ASC-US and LSIL Pap tests, is needed," they add.

HIGH SYSTOLIC PRESSURE IN HEART FAILURE

High Systolic Pressure a Positive Sign in Chronic Heart Failure

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) Jan 05 - In patients with chronic heart failure, higher systolic blood pressures paradoxically predict better survival, according to researchers in the UK.

Writing in the January issue of Heart, Dr. Claire E. Raphael and colleagues at St. Mary's Hospital and Imperial College, London, note that because "blood pressure is intrinsically related to the heart's ability to pump....there is a strong case for blood pressure as a marker of prognosis in heart failure."

The researchers performed a meta-analysis of 10 published reports on the relationship between blood pressure and mortality in chronic heart failure. Altogether, the studies involved 8088 patients and 29,222 person-years of follow-up.

In all 10 papers, a higher systolic blood pressure was a favorable prognostic marker, according to the article.

"The decrease in mortality rates associated with a 10 mm Hg higher systolic blood pressure was 13.0%...in the heart failure population," the authors report. This effect was not related to etiology or to the use of beta blockers or angiotensin enzyme-converting inhibitors.

Dr. Raphael and her coauthors point out that in patients with cardiac disease but without chronic heart failure affecting systolic function, mean arterial blood pressure is largely determined by peripheral vasoconstriction, and higher systolic pressure indicates poor elasticity of the arteries.

In patients with heart failure, however, systolic pressure reflects the ejection fraction and cardiac output. "Therefore," the investigators write, "a higher blood pressure is associated with a decreased mortality as it serves as an indirect measure of cardiac function."

"The potential of this simple variable in outpatient assessment of patients with chronic heart failure should not be neglected," the authors conclude. In particular, they say, the information could be used to optimize cardiac resynchronization devices.

Heart 2009;95:56-62.


COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF LAPATINIB IS DEBATABLE

Cancer. 2008 Dec 31. [Epub ahead of print]Related Articles

Cost-effectiveness analysis of lapatinib in HER-2-positive advanced breast cancer.

Le QA, Hay JW.

Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.

BACKGROUND:: A recent clinical trial demonstrated that the addition of lapatinib to capecitabine in the treatment of HER-2-positive advanced breast cancer (ABC) significantly increases median time to progression. The objective of the current analysis was to assess the cost-effectiveness of this therapy from the US societal perspective. METHODS:: A Markov model comprising 4 health states (stable disease, respond-to-therapy, disease progression, and death) was developed to estimate the projected-lifetime clinical and economic implications of this therapy. The model used Monte Carlo simulation to imitate the clinical course of a typical patient with ABC and updated with response rates and major adverse effects. Transition probabilities were estimated based on the results from the EGF100151 and EGF20002 clinical trials of lapatinib. Health state utilities, direct and indirect costs of the therapy, major adverse events, laboratory tests, and costs of disease progression were obtained from published sources. The model used a 3% discount rate and reported in 2007 US dollars. RESULTS:: Over a lifetime, the addition of lapatinib to capecitabine as combination therapy was estimated to cost an additional $19,630, with an expected gain of 0.12 quality-adjusted life years (QALY) or an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $166,113 per QALY gained. The 95% confidence limits of the ICER ranged from $158,000 to $215,000/QALY. A cost-effectiveness acceptability curve indicated less than 1% probability that the ICER would be lower than $100,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS:: Compared with commonly accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds in oncology treatment, the addition of lapatinib to capecitabine is not clearly cost-effective; and most likely to result in an ICER somewhat higher than the societal willingness-to-pay threshold limits. Cancer 2009. (c) 2009 American Cancer Society.

ORAL CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE IS BACK

Cancer. 2008 Dec 31. [Epub ahead of print]Related Articles

Phase 1/2 study of intravenous paclitaxel and oral cyclophosphamide in pretreated metastatic urothelial bladder cancer patients.

Di Lorenzo G, Montesarchio V, Autorino R, Bellelli T, Longo N, Imbimbo C, Morelli E, Giannarini G, Mirone V, De Placido S.

Department of Clinical and Molecular Oncology, Federico II University, Naples, Italy.

BACKGROUND:: To the authors' knowledge, no previous studies have been reported with the combination of paclitaxel and oral cyclophosphamide in patients with metastatic bladder cancer. A phase 1/2 study was conducted of paclitaxel in combination with oral cyclophosphamide for patients with advanced urothelial bladder cancer who had been previously treated with gemcitabine/cisplatin chemotherapy as first-line metastatic treatment. METHODS:: This was a single-arm phase 1/2 study. Patients were treated with paclitaxel and oral cyclophosphamide at 3-week intervals until disease progression or irreversible toxicity occurred. Primary endpoints were to determine the maximum tolerated doses (MTD) and objective response rate; secondary endpoints were safety, time to disease progression (TTP), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS:: Forty-four patients were enrolled. Dose levels of paclitaxel of 175 mg/m(2) (Day 1) and cyclophosphamide of 50 mg (Days 1-7 orally) (dose level I) of a 21-day cycle were tolerated without dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). At a cyclophosphamide dose of 100 mg (dose level II) the MTD was exceeded; 3 of 6 patients experienced a DLT (grade 3 constipation and grade 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia [toxicities were graded using National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria (version 3.0)]). Dose level I was expanded and determined to be the MTD. A total of 32 patients were treated at dose level I in the phase 2 portion. Partial responses were observed in 31% of patients (10 of 32 patients; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 17%-45%). Grade 1/2 vomiting, peripheral neuropathy, and neutropenia were the most common side effects, noted in 11 (34%), 8 (25%), and 10 (31%) patients, respectively. The median TTP was 5 months (95% CI, 2 months-7.5 months) and the median OS was 8 months (95% CI, 4 months-14 months). CONCLUSIONS:: The combination of paclitaxel and cyclophosphamide is well tolerated and associated with promising efficacy. Further trials are needed to confirm these preliminary results. Cancer 2009. (c) 2009 American Cancer Society.

BISPHOSPHONATES AND OSTEOCLASTS

Bisphosphonates Increase Rather Than Decrease Number of Osteoclasts

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) Dec 31 - Findings from a study of bone biopsies from women who took alendronate to prevent postmenopausal osteoporosis indicate that long-term treatment with the bisphosphonate actually increases rather than decreases the number of osteoclasts, as had been theorized.

Furthermore, the report in the January 1 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine shows that alendronate treatment gives rise to previously unrecognized giant multinucleated osteoclasts.

The 51 women who provided the bone samples were participants in a randomized placebo-controlled dose-ranging trial. Subjects in the alendronate arms had taken either 1, 5, or 10 mg/day for 3 years or 20 mg/day for 2 years followed by placebo for a year.

"The number of osteoclasts was increased by a factor of 2.6 in patients receiving 10 mg of alendronate per day for 3 years as compared with the placebo group," according to the paper. "Moreover, the number of osteoclasts increased as the cumulative dose of the drug increased."

The bisphosphonate was associated with the presence of what lead author Dr. Robert S. Weinstein from the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock described to Reuters Health as "a drug-induced abnormality -- giant osteoclasts much larger and containing far more nuclei than normal."

The giant cells were detached from the bone surface, "with a seemingly protracted duration of apoptosis," the researchers found.

"Alendronate decreases the ability of the osteoclasts to erode bone but significantly increases the number of these cells," Dr. Weinstein said, adding that the observed effect is "akin to disarming the soldiers...but increasing the size of the army."

The giant osteoclasts were still present a year after therapy was stopped, the team reports.

Dr. Weinstein called the discoveries "a dramatic departure from current thinking." He commented that drugs are often used on the basis of practical experience and added, "We often don't know as much about drugs as we would like... We can know that they work, but not how they work."

Although the giant osteoclasts may be dysfunctional and of no pathophysiologic significance, "awareness of a drug's side effects is crucial," Dr. Weinstein said.

He and his colleagues caution that the giant osteoclasts "could lead to mistaken diagnosis of Paget's disease or hyperparathyroidism," but they point out that in these conditions, "osteoid and osteoblasts are abundant, whereas after long-term oral therapy with nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates, reductions in osteoid, osteoblasts, and bone formation are expected."

DO NOT COMBINE PANITUMUMAB AND BEVACIZUMAB

J Clin Oncol. 2008 Dec 29. [Epub ahead of print]Related Articles, LinkOut
Click here to read
A Randomized Phase IIIB Trial of Chemotherapy, Bevacizumab, and Panitumumab Compared With Chemotherapy and Bevacizumab Alone for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

Hecht JR, Mitchell E, Chidiac T, Scroggin C, Hagenstad C, Spigel D, Marshall J, Cohn A, McCollum D, Stella P, Deeter R, Shahin S, Amado RG.

David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles; Amgen Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA; Kimmel Cancer Center of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA; M. Zangmeister Center, Columbus, OH; NEA Clinic, Jonesboro, AR; Suburban Hematology-Oncology Associates, Lawrenceville, GA; Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, TN; Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC; Rocky Mountain Cancer Centers, Denver, CO; Baylor-Sammons Cancer Center, Dallas, TX, St. Joseph Mercy Hospital, Ann Arbor, MI.

PURPOSE: Panitumumab, a fully human antibody targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor, is active in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This trial evaluated panitumumab added to bevacizumab and chemotherapy (oxaliplatin- and irinotecan-based) as first-line treatment for mCRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned within each chemotherapy cohort to bevacizumab and chemotherapy with or without panitumumab 6 mg/kg every 2 weeks. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) within the oxaliplatin cohort. Tumor assessments were performed every 12 weeks and reviewed centrally. RESULTS: A total of 823 and 230 patients were randomly assigned to the oxaliplatin and irinotecan cohorts, respectively. Panitumumab was discontinued after a planned interim analysis of 812 oxaliplatin patients showed worse efficacy in the panitumumab arm. In the final analysis, median PFS was 10.0 and 11.4 months for the panitumumab and control arms, respectively (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.52); median survival was 19.4 months and 24.5 months for the panitumumab and control arms, respectively. Grade 3/4 adverse events in the oxaliplatin cohort (panitumumab v control) included skin toxicity (36% v 1%), diarrhea (24% v 13%), infections (19% v 10%), and pulmonary embolism (6% v 4%). Increased toxicity without evidence of improved efficacy was observed in the panitumumab arm of the irinotecan cohort. KRAS analyses showed adverse outcomes for the panitumumab arm in both wild-type and mutant groups. CONCLUSION: The addition of panitumumab to bevacizumab and oxaliplatin- or irinotecan-based chemotherapy results in increased toxicity and decreased PFS. These combinations are not recommended for the treatment of mCRC in clinical practice.

ADJUVANT ANDROGEN DEPRIVATION THERAPY IN NODE POSITIVE PROSTATE CANCER PATIENTS?

Adjuvant Androgen Deprivation Not Clearly Beneficial in Node-Positive Prostate Cancer

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) Dec 31 - In men with node-positive prostate cancer, beginning or deferring adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy after surgery does not appear to significantly impact survival, according to a report in the January issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Dr. Yu-Ning Wong at the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia and colleagues came to this conclusion after analyzing Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) and Medicare data on 731 men who underwent radical prostatectomy between 1991 and 1999 and had positive regional lymph nodes.

There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between the 209 men who received androgen deprivation therapy within 120 days after surgery and the 522 men who did not. There was also no statistically significant survival differences with 90, 150, 180, and 365 days as the adjuvant therapy definition, according to the researchers.

"Our study highlights the significant uncertainty that surrounds the role of adjuvant therapy for men with high-risk, localized prostate cancer," the authors write.

They point out that while androgen deprivation therapy has not been effective when performed prior to prostatectomy, it "has a well-defined role" in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer who are receiving definitive radiation therapy. "This apparent dichotomy may support an interaction between radiation therapy and androgen deprivation therapy," they speculate. "This may also explain the lack of benefit of adjuvant ADT seen in this study."

Dr. Wong and colleagues acknowledge that the findings of this observational study should be validated in a prospective study. Nevertheless, they add, "We believe that these results add to the currently available data and should help treatment decisions, especially in patients who are concerned about androgen deprivation therapy-associated toxicity."

Prophylactic Cranial Irradiation in Extensive Disease Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Short-Term Health-Related Quality of Life and Patient Reported Symptoms—Results of an International Phase III Randomized Controlled Trial by the EORTC Radiation Oncology and Lung Cancer Groups

Berend J. Slotman, Murielle E. Mauer, Andrew Bottomley, Corinne Faivre-Finn, Gijs W.P.M. Kramer, Elaine M. Rankin, Michael Snee, Matthew Hatton, Pieter E. Postmus, Laurence Collette, Suresh Senan 

From the Radiation Oncology, VU University Medical Center; Pulmonary Diseases, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam; Arnhem's Radiotherapeutisch Instituut, Arnhem, the Netherlands; European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Headquarters, Statistics Department; EORTC Headquarters, Quality of Life Department, Brussels, Belgium; Clinical Oncology, Christie Hospital, Manchester; Cancer Medicine, University of Dundee Ninewells Hospital, Dundee; Clinical Oncology, Cookridge Hospital, Leeds; Cancer Research Center, Weston Park Hospital, Sheffield, United Kingdom 

Corresponding author: Berend J. Slotman, MD, PhD, Department of Radiation Oncology, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, the Netherlands; e-mail: bj.slotman@vumc.nl

Originally published as JCO Early Release 10.1200/JCO.2008.17.0746 on December 1 2008


Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 27, No 1 (January 1), 2009: pp. 78-84
© 2009 American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Purpose: Prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) in patients with extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC) leads to significantly fewer symptomatic brain metastases and improved survival. Detailed effects of PCI on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) are reported here. 

Patients and Methods: Patients (age, 18 to 75 years; WHO 2) with ED-SCLC, and any response to chemotherapy, were randomly assigned to either observation or PCI. Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and patient-reported symptoms were secondary end points. The European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer core HRQOL tool (Quality of Life Questionnaire C30) and brain module (Quality of Life Questionnaire Brain Cancer Module) were used to collect self-reported patient data. Six HRQOL scales were selected as primary HRQOL end points: global health status; hair loss; fatigue; and role, cognitive and emotional functioning. Assessments were performed at random assignment, 6 weeks, 3 months, and then 3-monthly up to 1 year and 6-monthly thereafter. 

Results: Compliance with the HRQOL assessment was 93.7% at baseline and dropped to 60% at 6 weeks. Short-term results up to 3 months showed that there was a negative impact of PCI on selected HRQOL scales. The largest mean difference between the two arms was observed for fatigue and hair loss. The impact of PCI on global health status as well as on functioning scores was more limited. For global health status, the observed mean difference was eight points on a scale 0 to 100 at 6 weeks (P = .018) and 3 months (P = .055). 

Conclusion: PCI should be offered to all responding ED SCLC patients. Patients should be informed of the potential adverse effects from PCI. Clinicians should be alert to these; monitor their patients; and offer appropriate support, clinical, and psychosocial care.
Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) represents approximately 15% of newly diagnosed lung cancers.1 Most patients present with extensive disease (ED-SCLC). Brain metastases are common and response to treatment is poor.2-4 

We recently studied the role of prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) in patients with ED-SCLC disease.5 Complete response is uncommon in extensive disease, so patients with any response to chemotherapy were included.5 We showed that PCI significantly decreases the risk of symptomatic brain metastases (from 40.4% to 14.6% at 1 year) and increases significantly overall survival (mortality hazard ratio of 0.68; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.88). Median overall survival was 6.74 months in the PCI arm, compared with 5.42 months in the control arm. Survival at 1 year was 27.1% in the PCI arm, compared with 13.3% in the control arm.5 

While PCI may lead to improved functioning by preventing or delaying the occurrence of symptomatic brain metastases, it can also have adverse effects. Therefore, an evaluation of the influence of PCI on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and patient-reported symptoms was undertaken as part of this study and the detailed results are reported here.
Study Design
This was an international multicenter phase III randomized controlled trial (RCT). Patients with ED-SCLC, who responded to chemotherapy, were randomly assigned between PCI or no further treatment. Patients were stratified for institution and performance status. The primary study end point was time to development of symptomatic brain metastases. Details on trial conduct and clinical outcome were reported previously.5 The protocol was reviewed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) protocol review committee and approved by the ethics committee in each institution. All patients provided written informed consent and the study was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki principles. 

HRQOL and patient-reported symptoms were secondary study end points. Two HRQOL measures were selected: the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30, version 3)6 and the EORTC QLQ Brain Cancer Module (EORTC-QLQ-BN20).7 Both tools have robust psychometric properties resulting from rigorous testing, development, and external validity, and in the case of the core tool from their use in hundreds of cancer RCTs.8 The EORTC QLQ-C30 is a core measure designed to be supplemented with disease-specific questionnaires, in this case EORTC QLQ-BN20. This module has just undergone the final phase of validation.9 Both instruments were available in the language of all participating countries.10 

The EORTC-QLQ-C30 measure comprises of five functioning scales (physical, role, emotional, cognitive, and social), three symptom scales (fatigue, nausea/vomiting, and pain), six single-item scales (dyspnea, insomnia, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea, and financial impact), and the overall HRQOL-scale. The EORTC-QLQ-BN20 is designed for use with patients undergoing chemotherapy or radiotherapy, and is composed of 20 questions assessing visual disorders, motor dysfunction, communication deficit, various disease symptoms (eg, headaches and seizures), treatment toxicities (eg, hair loss), and future uncertainty. 

The questions on both measures were scaled and scored using the recommended EORTC procedures.11 Raw scores were transformed to a linear scale ranging from 0 to 100, with a higher score representing a higher level of functioning or higher level of symptoms. Provided at least half of the items in the scale were completed, the scale score was calculated using only those items for which values existed. 

The results of this study are presented in accordance with recent guidelines for reporting HRQOL RCTs.12 Differences of at least 10 points (on a 0 to 100 scale) were classified as the minimum clinically meaningful change in the mean value of a HRQOL parameter.13 A mean increase or decrease by 10 points would mean a moderate improvement or worsening. Mean changes of fewer than 10 effect points were considered as not to be clinically significant. Mean changes of more than 20 points were classed as large effects. 

Before consent, patients were informed that their HRQOL would be assessed regularly. Patients completed the EORTC-QLQ-C30 and EORTC-QLQ-BN20 questionnaires at random assignment, at 6 weeks and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after random assignment and thereafter every 6 months until 3 years or death. Although we recognized the high attrition rate in this disease, we wanted to obtain data on quality of life in the longer-term survivors. The questionnaires were given to the patients by the investigator or a study nurse and completed before clinical evaluation. 

Compliance levels were calculated using a standard EORTC procedure (number of forms received divided by number expected) at each assessment point. Time windows for acceptable HRQOL forms were defined as follows: at baseline fewer than 2 weeks before or 3 weeks after randomization, and before the start of PCI; thereafter, adjacent time windows were used to gather the maximum of information available (< 3 weeks before and after for assessments at 6 weeks, < 3 weeks before and < 6 weeks after at 3 months, < 6 weeks before and after every 3 months and < 3 months before and after for assessments collected every 6 months). 

Statistical Analysis
During the design of the study, in order to reduce type I errors from multiple testing of HRQOL scales, six key HRQOL and symptom scales were preselected based on discussions with clinicians, which informed the protocol. The level of statistical significance was initially set at P = .01 to account for multiple comparisons (several HRQOL scales and different time points). The main objective of the HRQOL assessment was to determine the impact of PCI on the global health status scale and additionally to study the expected adverse effects of PCI: hair loss, fatigue, and restrictions in daily activities (role functioning). An improvement was expected after treatment. Moreover, as PCI leads to a significantly lower rate of symptomatic brain metastases and improved survival, an early and more pronounced deterioration of global health status, cognitive and emotional functioning was expected in the non-PCI group. Other HRQOL scales were analyzed on an exploratory basis. 

All data analyses were performed using the Statistical Analysis Software version 9 (SAS, Cary, NC). A mixed-model with an undefined covariance structure was fitted to the longitudinal HRQOL data of each selected score to test differences between the two treatment groups. HRQOL scores were analyzed as normal continuous data and data summarized in terms of mean scores and its evolution over time. All patients with at least one valid HRQOL form were included in the analysis (n = 280). As missing HRQOL data is a common problem, particularly in patients with a poor prognosis such as ED-SCLC, the mechanism of missing data was investigated to check the reliability of using a mixed model. 

To analyze HRQOL scores as continuous can be criticized especially for scores with only a few number of categories. Therefore, the percentages of patients who experienced more than a 20-point worsening from baseline up to 3 months after random assignment in each selected scale were also reported. The percentages were computed on the total number of patients with a baseline HRQOL assessment and with at least an additional follow-up HRQOL form at 6 weeks or 3 months.
etween February 2001 and March 2006, 286 patients were recruited (143 in each arm) from 40 centers. A total of 280 patients had at least one valid HRQOL form and 268 (93.7%) had a baseline assessment. Per study design, it was expected that the number of patients involved in the study at 3 years would be 120. The HRQOL assessments were to be performed until 3 years after random assignment or death. However, the duration of survival was shorter than expected, with median survival times around 6 months. In addition, compliance with the HRQOL assessment dropped to 60.0% at 6 weeks, 54.5% at 3 months, 60.8% at 6 months, 46.3% at 9 months, and 48.9% at 1 year (Table 1). Therefore, only data obtained up to 9 months were included in the analysis because of the small number of patients’ data at 1 year (only six patients in the non-PCI arm).Baseline clinical characteristics of patients with a baseline HRQOL assessment were very similar to those without it. Baseline HRQOL scores were similar in both arms, and Table 2 presents a comparison with normative data and other reference data in ED-SCLC.14 As can be expected by the inclusion of only responding patients in our study, our sample had less symptoms and HRQOL problems at baseline on a number of HRQOL and symptom scales.Fisher tests revealed no significant difference in compliance between the two arms at any time point. Reason for noncompletion of HRQOL forms was reported for 302 forms. Most common reasons were administrative failure (40.1%) and the patient being too ill to complete the questionnaire (23.8%). In the graphical investigation for drop-out mechanisms, no systematic sign of an informative drop-out was observed (data not shown). However, the mean scores for role and cognitive functioning showed a sharp decrease before drop-out at 6 months. The rapid deterioration of the patients could have led to an informative drop-out for some of the HRQOL scores. Therefore, a sensitivity analysis with HRQOL data cutoff at 3 months was performed. This period was considered long enough to observe any impairment of HRQOL due to PCI during and shortly after the treatment period. 

The mean global health status score was eight points higher in the PCI group at 6 weeks (P = .018) and 3 months (P = .056; Table 3 and Fig 2). These observed differences were below the cutoff of 10-point difference for clinical significance. None of the P values were below .01 but the P value at 6 weeks was close to .01. The results of the sensitivity analysis did not differ (Appendix Table A1, online only). In terms of proportions, there was 12.5% more patients in the PCI arm compared with the control arm experiencing a worsening 20 points (large effects) in global health status from baseline up to 3 months (Table 4).
As expected, there were some treatment-related effects and mean scores for both hair loss and fatigue were significantly higher in the PCI arm (overall test, P < .001; Fig 2). The difference in mean scores for hair loss between the two arms exceeded 10 points at all time points after baseline, attained statistical significance (P < .001) at 6 weeks, with a mean score of 36.5 for the PCI group and 11.7 for controls. For fatigue, the mean difference was statistically and clinically significant at 6 weeks (43.2 for PCI and 29.3 for control), and at 3 months (53.6 for PCI arm and 38.5 for control). The impact of PCI was limited for role, emotional, and cognitive functioning. There was a maximum mean difference of 9.4 at week 6 for role functioning, 8.8 at month 3 for cognitive functioning, and 7.4 at week 6 for emotional functioning, with all favoring the control arm. None of the P values were below .01 nor was the 10-point clinical significant difference reached at any time point. These results were confirmed by the sensitivity analysis. The analysis of the proportions of patients experiencing a worsening from baseline up to 3 months confirmed that the larger impact of PCI was on fatigue. The impact of PCI on functioning scales was similar to the one on global health status—more limited (Table 5). For hair loss, the difference between the two arms was larger, as there was an improvement in the control arm (Fig 1). No assessment of the long-term impact or benefit of PCI on HRQOL was possible due to the small number of patients with data at later time points.Our exploratory analysis of the remaining HRQOL and symptom scales (ie, not preselected for the analysis) showed statistically significant (P < .01) and clinically significant (or near to) mean differences between the two arms for appetite loss, constipation, nausea/vomiting, social functioning, future uncertainty, headaches, motor dysfunction, and weakness of the legs at 6 weeks and/or at 3 months (Fig 2). Clearly, while these are only exploratory analyses, they do indicate a trend toward worsening of HRQOL on some scales in the PCI arm. The lack of data does not allow us to report reliably on more long-term results.

DISCUSSION

In the 1990s, a number of randomized trials unequivocally showed that PCI reduces the incidence of brain metastases in patients with limited disease–SCLC, without increasing toxicity if not given concurrently with chemotherapy.15-19 Meta-analyses revealed a survival benefit for PCI,18,19 with a 3-year survival rate of 21% in patients who received PCI, versus 15% in those who did not.18 Our recent study in patients with ED-SCLC showed that PCI resulted in a significantly improved survival and a significant reduction in the rate of brain metastases.5 Due to the poor survival in patients with ED-SCLC, inclusion in this study was limited to patients with a response after chemotherapy. In addition, short and relatively low-dose fractionation schemes were used. We demonstrated that the reduction in hazard rate for symptomatic brain metastases was around 75%. PCI also significantly prolonged overall survival (P = .0033).10 

This study reported here gives further insights into the effect of PCI on the patient. As expected, short-term results showed that PCI had a negative impact on selected HRQOL scales. Among the selected HRQOL scales, the larger difference between the two arms was observed on hair loss and fatigue at 6 weeks and 3 months in favor of the control arm. For hair loss, the difference was larger as there was an improvement in the control arm. The impact of PCI on functioning scales was limited. The key HRQOL results showed an eight-point difference in observed mean scores in global health status in favor of the control arm at 6 weeks and 3 months after random assignment (below the minimum clinical difference of 10 points). The P value was close to .01 at 6 weeks. There were 12.5% more patients in the PCI arm who experienced severe worsening (> 20 points) in global health status from baseline up to 3 months. Short-term results were quite similar for role, cognitive, and emotional functioning. 

No reliable assessment of a more long-term impact and expected benefit of PCI on HRQOL was possible due to the small number of patients with data at later time points. In addition, there was the suspicion of data not missing at random. Reason for noncompletion of HRQOL forms was reported for 302 forms and 23.8% were not filled in because the patient was or felt too ill to complete the questionnaire. Further analysis revealed that, although there was no statistically significant difference in compliance between the two arms, the return rate of HRQOL forms for patients with brain metastases at 3 months was 31.8% compared with 56.8% in patients without brain metastases. Therefore, the occurrence of brain metastases even at these early time points, could have resulted in a lack of reporting rather than in a reporting of a deterioration, not favoring the PCI arm. 

For cognitive functioning, the results were opposite to the anticipated effects, as scores after 3 months were 8.8 points higher in the control arm. This could be due to the lower return rate for patients with brain metastases, but we cannot exclude the possibility of a real difference in favor of the non-PCI group in the self-report of cognitive functioning. In particular, the PCI group reported more fatigue at 3 months, which can also adversely affect cognitive functioning. Finally, it is known that the self-report of cognitive functioning and clinical assessment of cognitive functioning may be poorly correlated. 

The remaining HRQOL and symptom scores were analyzed on an exploratory basis. PCI clearly does have an adverse impact on appetite loss, constipation, nausea/vomiting, social functioning, future uncertainty, headaches, motor dysfunction, and weakness of legs at 6 weeks and/or at 3 months. These are important issues for patients and treating clinicians to be aware of. 

This study had a number of limitations and weaknesses. The significant challenge was the small number of patients for whom data were still available at 1 year (only six patients in the non-PCI arm); therefore, only data up to 9 months were analyzed. The compliance with measures at follow-up assessments was lower than expected, although it was almost 50% at 1 year. The major causes were administrative failure or patients being too sick to complete the measures. However, this is often the case in patients with advanced cancer, as recently noted in a systematic review.20 In this study, survival was shorter than expected, thereby limiting power estimates considerably. This is a well-known problem when trials are powered for other clinical end points and not HRQOL end points.13 With few patients, the lack of statistical significance should not be necessarily interpreted as a proof of no difference. 

This study clearly demonstrates the significant challenge of effective data collecting in palliative care patients. Although we undertook an extensive statistical analysis to evaluate most sources of bias, this must be noted as a major caution in interpreting the results. Patient HRQOL and symptom results are best interpreted on the data collected early in the study. 

In the majority of cases, missing data was due to administrative failure and this must be addressed in future trials, with different approaches (eg, by providing extra funding for and education and training in HRQOL assessment, ensuring better monitoring of HRQOL data, using the newly validated shortened EORTC palliative care module [a tool not available at the start of this study], and even ultimately considering selecting only good recruiting centers to participate in HRQOL studies when studies involve patients in the palliative setting). Hence, while this trial has limitations in terms of HRQOL compliance and symptom-reported data, it has helped direct increased attention to the future design of studies with palliative patients. 

In summary, this study has shown that PCI improves survival and reduces the incidence of brain metastases in patients who have shown a response to chemotherapy for their ED-SCLC. There is a cost in terms of more prolonged hair loss and increased fatigue, both expected treatment-related adverse effects. There was a negative impact of PCI on functioning scales but limited. Therefore, PCI should be offered to all patients with ED-SCLC who respond to initial chemotherapy. Patients should be told of the benefits of PCI and of its possible negative impact on QOL empowering them with relevant information to allow informed, individualized treatment choices.

Population-based Assessment of Survival After Cytoreductive Nephrectomy Versus No Surgery in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

Laurent Zinia, b, Umberto Capitanioa, c, Paul Perrotted, Claudio Jeldresa, Shahrokh F. Shariata, Philippe Arjaned, Hugues Widmerd, Francesco Montorsic, Jean-Jacques Patarde and Pierre I. Karakiewicza, d, ,

aCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

bDepartment of Urology, Lille University Hospital, Lille, France

cDepartment of Urology, Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy

dDepartment of Urology, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

eDepartment of Urology, Rennes University Hospital, Rennes, France

Received 16 July 2008; accepted 9 September 2008. Available online 28 November 2008.
Objectives

To examine the population-based survival rates of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated with cytoreductive nephrectomy (CNT) and compare them with those of patients treated without surgery.
Methods

Of the 43 143 patients with RCC identified in the 1988-2004 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database, 5372 had metastatic RCC. Of those, 2447 were treated with CNT (45.5%) and 2925 (54.5%) were not. Unvariable and multivariable Cox regression models, as well as matched and unmatched Kaplan-Meier survival analyses, were used. The covariates consisted of age, sex, tumor size, and year of diagnosis.
Results

The 1-, 2-, 5-, and 10-year overall survival rate of the patients treated with CNT was 53.6%, 36.3%, 19.4%, and 12.7% compared with 18.5%, 7.4%, 2.3%, and 1.2% for the no-surgery patients, respectively. The corresponding cancer-specific survival rates were 58.1%, 40.8%, 24.3%, and 18.8% and 24.4%, 11.0%, 4.1%, and 2.9% for the same patient groups. On multivariate analysis, independent predictor status was recorded for treatment type, tumor size, and patient age (all P <.001). Also, relative to CNT, the no-surgery group had a 2.5-fold greater rate of overall and cancer-specific mortality (P <.001). In the matched analyses, virtually the same effect was recorded (hazard ratio 2.6, P <.001).
Conclusion

The results of our study have shown that CNT significantly improves the survival of patients with metastatic RCC.
From International Journal of Clinical Practice 
 
Optimal Time to Take Once-Daily Oral Medications in Clinical Practice CME
Posted 12/4/2008
 
Ling-Ling Zhu, MD; Quan Zhou, MD; Xiao-Feng Yan, MD; Su Zeng, MD 
Disclosures


Abstract and Introduction
Abstract

Currently only a few package inserts of once-daily medications specially define the dosing time, although sporadic studies have demonstrated administration time-dependent effects on the therapeutic outcome. Some chronotherapeutic approaches aim to diminish the occurrence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and hence better tolerance and medication compliance whereas most of the chronotherapies are recommended to improve therapeutic efficacy. The administration time-dependent efficacy seems not a common feature of drugs within the similar therapeutic or structural class and it is related to kinds of drugs, pathophysiologic status, clinical symptoms and feedback from patients. Doctors, pharmacists and nurses should know what kind of drug has requirement for optimal dosing time, and realize that better efficacy and lower incidence of ADRs may be achieved by rational arrangement of administration schedule. In order to promote medication compliance, it is essential to provide patient education regarding differences between conventional and chronotherapeutic approaches and pathophysiologic benefits of chronotherapy.
Introduction

More and more once-daily oral medications are emerging. As members of medication therapy management (MTM) in clinical practice, doctors, pharmacists and nurses always face a common problem, i.e. what is the optimal time for the patients to take these drugs. Is it in the morning, in the early evening, at bedtime or at any time? Pitifully, only a few package inserts specially define the dosing time. This critical problem introduces a concept of chronotherapy, which is the optimisation of drug effects and/or minimisation of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) by timing medications with regard to biological rhythms.[1] Numerous sporadic clinical trials have demonstrated administration time-dependent effects of once-daily medications on therapeutic outcome. So, the members of MTM have a lot to relearn about how to use both old and new once-daily drugs effectively. However, a systematic review update of chronotherapy of once-daily medications in clinical practice is not yet available.

Meanwhile, a patient who is being switched from a conventional regimen to a chronotherapeutic regimen may not fully understand the fundamentals behind the change. This in turn may result in poor medication compliance, or, even worse, that the patient may discontinue taking the medicine. So it is essential for the members of MTM to remind themselves to promote medication compliance by providing education to the patient regarding the differences between conventional and chronotherapeutic approaches, and pathophysiologic benefits of chronotherapy. This paper focuses on this respect and aims to describe that better efficacy and lower incidence of ADRs may be achieved by arranging optimal dosing time of once-daily medications.

Antigastric-secretion Drugs

Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) and H2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) are two major acid-suppressing drugs used for symptom relief, healing of erosive oesophagitis, resolution of peptic ulceration, reducing risk for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-induced mucosal damage and prevention of disease recurrence.

It was found that the optimal time of morning vs. evening administration of PPIs depended on the kind of PPI, clinical symptoms and feedback from the patients. Morning dosing of pantoprazole was significantly superior to evening dosing with regard to 24-h intragastric pH and it should be recommended for the treatment of acid-related diseases.[2] This administration schedule is also specially defined in prescribing information for PANTOLOC® (pantoprazole tablets; ALTANA Pharma, Konstanz, Germany). However, dosing time is not yet defined in the package inserts of LOSEC MUPS® (omeprazole magnesium tablets; AstraZeneca AB, Södertälje, Sweden), Pariet® (rabeprazole tablets; Esai Co Ltd, Tokyo, Japan), Prevacid® (lansoprazole capsules; TAP Pharmaceutical Products, Lake Forest, IL, USA) and Nexium® (esomeprazole magnesium tablets; AstraZeneca Pharmaceutical Co Ltd, Wilminton, DE, USA). Morning dosing of omeprazole is preferable for patients with reflux induced by physical activity whereas evening dosing is clearly preferable for patients with nocturnal reflux.[3] Lansoprazole is routinely administered in the morning, but patients with mainly nocturnal symptoms may be best treated by evening dosing.[4] Evening dosing of rabeprazole (20 mg) normalises more effectively the total oesophageal exposure and provides significantly better control of nocturnal gastro-oesophageal reflux disease than morning dosing.[5] One potential reason for the better efficacy of the evening dosing of PPI could be the higher caloric intake at dinner compared with breakfast and the theory that the more potent the stimulus, the more proton pumps that will be exposed for consecutive inhibition by the PPI.

As for once daily H2RAs such as ranitidine, famotidine and roxatidine, early evening dosing (18:00 h) provides better control of nocturnal acidity and more satisfactory control of 24-h acidity than dosing at bedtime (22:00 h) and hence is suggested for optimisation of therapeutic efficacy.[6-9] A possible explanation for the improved efficacy is that high plasma concentrations of oral H2RAs are present when stimuli to acid secretion are high after dinner.
Drugs Acting on Cardiovascular System

In the cardiovascular patient, the focus of chronotherapy would be to optimally improve the prevention and treatment of diseases according to circadian variations and the kinetic and dynamic properties of drugs. Table 1 lists the optimal dosing time of common drugs acting on cardiovascular system.

Calcium Channel Blockers

Several studies compared the efficacies of morning vs. evening administration of calcium channel blockers (CCBs) in patients with essential hypertension. Administration time-dependent effect on blood pressure (BP) seems not a common feature of CCBs. It is related to the kinds of CCBs.
Isradipine Sustained Release

Once daily dosing time is not yet defined in the current package insert of DynaCirc CR® (isradipine controlled release tablets; Reliant Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Liberty Corner, NJ, USA). A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study revealed that the BP-lowering effect of isradipine sustained release in 18 patients with uncomplicated essential hypertension (mean age 55 ± 6 years) was regardless of dosing time.[10] However, an evening regimen seems more apt than a morning regimen to obtain the therapeutic goal in hypertensive patients with chronic renal failure. Only the evening administration reset the normal synchronisation of the 24-h BP and heart rate (HR) profiles. The non-dipper BP profile could be normalised with evening but not morning dosing.[11] The difference in the results of these two studies implies that the comorbidity factor (i.e. chronic renal failure) exerts different administration time-dependent effect of isradipine sustained release on BP in hypertensive patients. It may be explained by the systolic and diastolic BP fall in the night, which attenuated in chronic renal failure patients, in contrast to the essential hypertension in which the nocturnal BP fall was preserved.
Nifedipine GITS

In previously untreated essential hypertension patients with grade 1–2, the efficacy of 60 mg/day nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) in non-responders to the initial 30 mg/day dose was twice as great with bedtime when compared with morning dosing. Bedtime administration significantly reduces the incidence of oedema as an ADR by 91% and the total number of all ADRs by 74% when compared with morning dosing. Interestingly, dosing time effect on the efficacy was closely related to the dosage of nifedipine GITS. The dosing time of 30 mg/day nifedipine GITS has no impact on the therapeutic efficacy.[12,13] Although once daily dosing time is not yet defined in prescribing information for Adalat XL® (nifedipine GITS), the dose-dependent enhanced efficacy and the markedly improved safety profile of bedtime as compared with morning dosing should be taken into account when prescribing nifedipine GITS in the treatment of essential hypertension.
Amlodipine

An open, randomised cross-over study in 12 patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension for 3 weeks showed that morning dosing of amlodipine lowered daytime BP slightly more than evening dosing, but this did not achieve statistical significance.[14] However, a perspective, double-blind, randomised, crossover study, in 62 Chinese patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension for 6 weeks, revealed that 24-h diastolic BP load and nighttime BP load were significantly greater with evening dosing compared with morning dosing. Nocturnal fall of BP was greater with morning dosing than with evening dosing.[15] Thus, although once daily dosing time is not yet specially defined in the current package insert of Norvasc® (amlodipine tablets; Pfizer, New York, NY, USA), the optimal dosing time of amlodipine may be morning.
Nisoldipine Extended Release

A randomised, crossover study in 85 patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension revealed that the timing of nisoldipine extended release administration had no effect on the mean changes in BP and HR over a 24-h period. However, a significantly greater effect on awake diastolic BP following 4-week 20 mg once-daily therapy was observed with morning dosing compared with evening dosing. In addition, small increases in sleep and early morning HR were seen with evening compared with morning administration of nisoldipine.[16] So, morning dosing may be preferred for nisoldipine extended release.
Cilnidipine

An open randomised crossover study in 13 essential hypertension patients concluded that cilnidipine efficacy was regardless of administration time.[17] However, bedtime but not morning dosing significantly reduces nocturnal BP and is useful for patients with uncontrollable morning hypertension.[18] Large-sample, double-blind randomised crossover study is essential for the evaluation of the dosing-time dependent efficacy of cilnidipine.
Verapamil Extended-release (Covera-HS®)

Covera-HS (Pfizer) uses the controlled-onset, extended release delivery system. The tablet consists of multiple coats. The outermost coat is composed of a semi-permeable membrane that regulates the amount of water that can penetrate into the tablet. Water from the GI tract will continue to saturate this layer at a fixed rate until the second coat is reached. The second coat will continue to absorb water but temporarily impedes any fluid from reaching the inner core of active drug. After 4–5 h, fluid eventually penetrates into the third coat, which osmotically expands, pushing verapamil out of the tablet at a constant, fixed rate. According to this design principle, Covera-HS should be given at bedtime so that the bedtime dosing can achieve a maximum plasma concentration of verapamil in the early morning and the extended release over the 24-h time period.[19]
Diltiazem Extended Release (Cardizem LA®)

Compared with morning administration, bedtime dosing of Cardizem LA® (Biovail, Mississauga, ON, Canada) provides enhanced 24-h control, optimal morning protection and an additional 3.3 mmHg diastolic BP reduction in the critical morning hours, when angina or hypertensive patients are at the greatest risk.[20] A possible explanation for the improved efficacy is that bedtime administration exhibited 22% greater bioavailability compared with morning administration under steady-state conditions and also provided more than twofold higher plasma diltiazem levels in the critical morning hours.[21]
Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers

Although once daily dosing time is not yet specially defined in the current package inserts of Aprovel® (irbesartan tablets; Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Ambares, France), Diovan® (valsartan capsules; Novartis, East Hanover, NJ, USA), Micardis® (telmisartan tablets; Boehringer Ingelheim, Ridgefield, NJ, USA), Blopress® (candesartan cilexetil tablets; Takeda Pharmaceutical, Osaka, Japan) and Benicar® (olmesartan medoxomil tablets; Sankyo, Tokyo, Japan), the efficacies of morning vs. evening administration of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in essential hypertension patients were compared in several studies. Inconsistent findings were identified. The administration time-dependent efficacy seems not a common feature of ARBs. It is related to the kinds of ARBs and the dipper status of patients.

Administration time-dependent effects of losartan have not been documented. There was no significant difference in antihypertensive efficacy between administration schedules (morning vs. evening) following a 6-week therapy with 100 mg irbesartan in 20 patients with uncomplicated, mild-to-moderate essential hypertension.[22] Dosing time did not exert statistically significant differences on the efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil (20–40 mg) after 12 weeks of morning vs. evening dosing in 18 diurnally active subjects with uncomplicated, mild to moderate, essential hypertension.[23]

The optimal time of valsartan is bedtime. Bedtime administration as opposed to administration during wakening improves the sleep time-relative BP decline towards a more dipper pattern without loss in 24-h efficacy. It also results in a significant increase in the percentage of controlled patients after treatment, and a significant reduction in urinary albumin excretion. Time of treatment can be chosen according to the dipper status of a patient.[24,25]

A study in 42 young men with mild or moderate essential hypertension concluded that telmisartan (40 or 80 mg) should be given in the morning, in that a statistically significant reduction of morning diastolic BP was only found in patients treated with telmisartan in the morning, as opposed to bedtime dosing, although the systolic BP values in all the time intervals were comparable.[26] More recently, bedtime dosing of telmisartan was recommended. As opposed to morning dosing, bedtime dosing improved the sleep time-relative BP decline towards a more dipper pattern without loss in 24-h efficacy, and achieve significantly better nocturnal BP regulation following a 12-week therapy with 80 mg telmisartan in 215 patients, mean age 46.4 ± 12.0, with essential hypertension.[27] The findings indicate that the dosing time of telmisartan can be chosen according to the dipper status of a patient. Further studies are needed to address whether age status may influence administration time-dependent effects of telmisartan on BP control in hypertensive patients.

As for candesartan cilexetil, the optimal dosing time is during awakening. The efficacy of candesartan cilexetil (8 mg once daily) was evaluated after 3-month antihypertensive therapy in 60 patients, mean age 60 ± 6 years, with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. Administration upon awakening, as opposed to at bedtime, seems to provide a superior control of mean 24 h and mean daytime BP.[28]


Angiotensin-converting Enzyme Inhibitors

Although once daily dosing time is not yet defined in the current package inserts of Lotensin® (benazepril hydrochloride tablets), Accupril® (quinapril hydrochloride tablets), Tritace® (ramipril tablets) and MAVIK® (trandolapril tablets), the efficacies of morning vs. evening administration of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) in essential hypertension patients were compared in several studies.

A single-blind crossover study in 10 hypertensive patients receiving a single dose of 10 mg benazepril concluded that morning administration more effectively covered the whole 24 h than an evening dose.[29] It is worthy to study whether chronological effect still exists during maintenance therapy with benazepril. As for perindopril (4 mg), the effect of reducing the early morning peak BP rise tended to be greater with the 21:00 h dose. However, the 09:00 h dose had an effect that persisted for > 24 h but the effect of the 21:00 h dose had dissipated 18 h after the dose.[30] It indicates that the response profile obtained with perindopril cannot be transformed from one dose time to another automatically and that chronobiology has important effects on the drug's action. Currently, morning dosing is recommended in prescribing information for Acertil® (Servier, Orléans, France). In clinical practice, the 21:00 h dose should be titrated to the next dose range.

Evening administration of quinapril (20 mg) seems preferable, because it produces a more sustained and stable 24-h BP control compared with the morning dosing, probably through a more favourable modulation of tissue angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition or effect on the adrenergic-induced rise in BP that occurs during early morning hours. A partial loss of effectiveness was observed during night if quinapril was given in the morning.[31]

The optimal dosing time of ramipril is evening or bedtime. Evening intake of 5 mg ramipril had a significantly more favourable effect on haemodynamics than morning dosing in 30 patients with essential hypertension stage II.[32] Beneficial effects on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality seen with ramipril in the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation study were related to its improved effect (i.e. increase in the diurnal/nocturnal BP ratio) on the non-dipping BP pattern of the participating cohort of patients receiving ramipril at bedtime.[33]

The optimal dosing time of trandolapril is bedtime. In the bedtime-administered group, prewaking and morning systolic BP were significantly decreased by 11 mmHg and by 8.4 mmHg respectively. On the other hand, in the morning-administered group, the reduction of prewaking and morning systolic BP did not reach the level of statistical significance. Bedtime administration results in a safe and effective means of controlling morning BP without the induction of excessive BP reduction nocturnally.[34]

Blood pressure changes as a result of once daily administration 20 mg lisinopril at three different times (8:00, 16:00 and 22:00 h) were assessed in 40 patients with primary mild-to-moderate hypertension. The chronobiological analysis showed a greater reduction of systolic and diastolic morning BP after dosing at 22:00 h, although BP circadian rhythm was unmodified. A possible explanation for the improved efficacy of administration at 22:00 h that peak serum concentrations of lisinopril occur within about 7 h when cardiovascular events are most frequent.[35]

Dry cough as an ADR is observed in 12% or more patients treated with enalapril. This ADR might be diminished or eliminated by a switch to nighttime administration in patients who complain of cough during treatment with enalapril in the morning.[36,37] Plasma bradykinin, which is likely to be involved in the mechanism of enalapril-induced cough, was found to be affected by the dosing time. It tended to increase following enalapril administration at 10:00 h, but not at 22:00 h. In addition, BP was still significantly reduced 24 h after administration of enalapril at 22:00 h, but not at 10:00 h, indicating the prolonged antihypertensive action of enalapril after administration at 22:00 h. Thus, nighttime dosing is preferred for enalapril.
Beta-blockers

Beta-blockers are still recommended as first-line therapy in many hypertensive patients, particularly those at high risk for cardiovascular disease. They are also indicated for other cardiovascular disorders such as congestive heart failure and postmyocardial infarction.

Clinical usefulness of chronotherapy with carvedilol was observed by Koga et al.[38] Carvedilol, as a single dose in the morning or evening in a randomised crossover open-label protocol, was added to therapy regimen in nine patients who had been treated with first-line antihypertensive drugs for 4 weeks but still had high BP in the morning. Evening carvedilol administration after 4 weeks significantly suppressed the morning surge while morning administration lacked a significant anti-surge effect. The addition of chronotherapy with carvedilol may be an effective way to suppress morning surges of hypertension. Carvedilol phosphate extended-release capsule (COREG CR; GlaxoSmithKline, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA) utilises proprietary micropump technology that controls the delivery of carvedilol and helps to maintain appropriate concentrations in the body over a 24-h span with once-daily dosing. It should be taken once daily in the morning with food, as described in its current package insert. A phase I clinical trial (study ID: SK&F-105517/906) sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline may provide evidence for favouring morning dosing of COREG CR.[39] In that clinical trial, evening administration of carvedilol CR (80 mg) resulted in an approximate 10% decrease in the area under the curve of both R(+)- and S(–)-carvedilol, a 15–19% decrease in Cmax of both R(+)- and S(–)-carvedilol and a decrease in the rate of absorption of both R(+)- and S(–)-carvedilol (tmax delayed approximately 1.5 h) compared with morning administration. As for metoprolol succinate sustained-release (Betaloc ZOK; AstraZeneca Pharmaceutical Co Ltd), it is recommended for once daily treatment and is preferably taken together with the morning meal according to its prescribing information. Moreover, morning hypotension and daytime fatigue can be avoided when metoprolol succinate is prescribed with the breakfast.[40] A chronotherapeutic formulation of propranolol extended release (Innopran XL™; Reliant Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) was approved for the treatment of hypertension because of its appropriate pharmacokinetics. Multiple-dose study of this medication showed that bedtime dosing was preferable in that it resulted in trough drug blood concentration during the night because of the intentional delay of propranolol release for 4–5 h, peak drug concentration between 4 and 10 AM, and an elevated plateau of drug concentration in the afternoon and early evening.[41]
Antihyperlipidaemic Drugs

3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors, also known as statins, are effective in primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with hyperlipidaemia. The rate of cholesterol biosynthesis is at its highest after midnight and lowest during the morning and early afternoon. The circadian rhythm is caused by diurnal changes in the activity of hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase. In general, statins with a shorter half-life (i.e. lovastatin, simvastatin and fluvastatin) are more effective in lowering low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) when taken in the evening, whereas statins with longer half-lives (i.e. fluvastatin extended release, rosuvastatin and atorvastatin) have similar lipid-lowering effects when taken during any time of the day.[42-46]

The systemic bioavailability of pravastatin administered at bedtime was 60% decreased compared with that following a morning dose. However, the efficacy of pravastatin administered in the evening was marginally more effective than that after a morning dose. Chronophysiologic effect outweighing chronopharmacokinetic effect may be the underlying mechanism. In the current package insert of Mevalotin® (Sankyo), it is also recommended to be taken once daily at bedtime. New evidence has shown significant administration time-dependent influence on lipid and non-lipid related effects of atorvastatin in 152 patients undergoing PCI. One year clinical follow-up data in these patients showed evening intake of atorvastatin (40 mg/day for the first month and 10 mg/day thereafter) was associated with less frequent occurrence of major cardiac events, a low restenosis rate, a trend towards low pre- and postprocedural high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels, a more pronounced decrease in total cholesterol, LDL-C and triglyceride values, an increase in high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C) levels and better improvement of endothelial dysfunction compared with morning dosing.[47]

As for ezetimibe, morning intake was equally effective for total and LDL-C, but there was a benefit with morning intake considering the increase in HDL-C.[48] However, dosing time is not yet defined in the prescribing information for Zetia® (ezetimibe tablets; Schering-Plough, Kenilworth, NJ, USA). Vytorin® (ezetimibe/simvastatin tablet; Merck/Schering-Plough, Kenilworth, NJ, USA) is more effective when taken in the evening according to its prescribing information. As to bezafibrate extended release, total cholesterol-lowering efficacy was regardless of dosing time but HDL-C increased more with morning dosing.[49] Fenofibrate extended release morning intake was equally effective as evening intake.[50]
Doxazosin GITS

Doxazosin GITS (Cardura® XL; Pfizer) is usually taken once a day in the morning with breakfast according to its prescribing information. However, a randomised study in 91 patients with grade 1–2 essential hypertension (mean age 56.7 ± 11.2 years) demonstrated that doxazosin GITS (4 mg) therapy upon awakening for 3 months failed to provide full 24-h therapeutic coverage whereas bedtime dosing significantly reduced BP throughout the 24 h.[51] Interestingly, dosing time did not appear to influence the efficacy and safety of doxazosin in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) after 24 weeks of treatment, suggesting that there is no need to restrict the administration of doxazosin to the evening in BPH patients.[52]
Aspirin

Low-dose aspirin is commonly prescribed for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events. Dosing time is not yet defined in the current package insert of Bayaspirin®; Bayer, Leverkusen, Germany. However, recent evidence showed that 100 mg aspirin administered at bedtime, but not on awakening, has a beneficial effect on ambulatory BP. BP was slightly elevated after dosing on awakening whereas a significant BP reduction (decrease of 7.2/4.9 mmHg in systolic/diastolic BP) was observed in patients who was receiving aspirin before bedtime.[53] The reduction in nocturnal BP mean was double in non-dippers (11.0/7.1 mmHg) compared with dippers (5.5/3.3 mmHg; p < 0.001). The study corroborates significant administration time-dependent effect of low-dose aspirin on BP, mainly in non-dipper hypertensive patients.[54] Morning dosing of aspirin has its lowest protective value against cardiovascular events during the night and early morning. In contrast, highest plasma level of aspirin taken late evening (22:00 h) would be reached prior to the peak-incidence of thromboembolic disorders. Bedtime dosing would thus fit better in the circadian scheme of the occurrence of stroke, thus resulting in a significantly more effective prevention.[55]
Isosorbide Mononitrate Sustained-release Formulation

Elantan LA® (Schwarz Pharma, Monheim, Germany), a long-acting isosorbide mononitrate formulation, should be given upon awakening. About 30% of its dose is available for immediate release and the remaining 70% is gradually released over time. It has a quick onset of action and effects are evident for up to 17 h. Its pharmacokinetic profile accords with the circadian variation in cardiovascular disease and hence maximised protection against the morning surge in myocardial ischaemia. As for IMDUR® (AstraZeneca Pharmaceutical Co Ltd), once-daily administration in the morning, after awakening, is recommended in its package insert so that it produces a plasma nitrate profile that is high enough to give anti-anginal protection during the daytime, but low enough during the latter part of the dosage interval to avoid the development of tolerance.

Diuretics are currently recommended as first-line therapy for the treatment of hypertension. In addition, they remain an important component in the treatment of heart failure. Indapamide and hydrochlorothiazide should be given in the morning. The urinary Na/K ratio in the patients is increased significantly and thus fewer side effects by a switch to morning-time administration. Efficacy of torasemide (5 mg/day) in 58 patients with grade 1–2 essential hypertension was significantly higher with bedtime dosing as compared with the administration of the drug on awakening. The percentage of patients with controlled ambulatory BP after 6 weeks treatment was also higher after bedtime treatment (54% vs. 27%). In addition, a full 24-h therapeutic coverage was observed only when torasemide was given before bedtime.[56] With regard to the safety profile, two patients presented secondary effects (abdominal pain, diarrhoea) in morning dose, and four patients taking the drug at bedtime reported nicturia. The differences in efficacy and therapeutic duration should be taken into account when prescribing torasemide for the treatment of essential hypertension. To reduce nighttime urination, take the once-daily hydrochlorothiazide based fixed-dose combination before 6 PM and preferably in the morning. These medications include beta-blocker/hydrochlorothiazide, ARB-hydrochlorothiazide and ACEI-hydrochlorothiazide.

Antidepressants

Chronotherapies with antidepressants may bring additional therapeutic advantages. Clomipramine (150 mg) once daily was given to 30 patients with depression at three different times of the day (morning, noon, or before bedtime), using a double-blind method over a 4-week period. Beneficial effects were closely related to the administration time, with the most effective result being observed with the noon administration.[57]

On the contrary, dosing time has no influence on the efficacies of citalopram, sertraline and venlafaxine sustained release formulations, as indicated in standard drug information. Fluoxetine is recommended to be administered in the morning according to the package insert of Prozac® (fluoxetine capsules; Eli Lilly & Co, Indianapolis, IN, USA), although Usher et al.[58] revealed that the efficacy and toleration were regardless of the dosing time. Fluvoxamine is better tolerated with bedtime dosing. Mirtazapine is a potent blocker of the histamine receptors and it tends to have a somewhat sedative effect, thus favouring administration at bedtime. Fluvoxamine maleate and mirtazapine are also recommended to be given at bedtime according to their prescribing information. Paroxetine is usually administered in the morning. Morning dosing can decrease the occurrence of insomnia as an ADR, whereas bedtime dosing is preferable if patients feel drowsy after morning dosing. The olanzapine/fluoxetine combination has demonstrated effectiveness in the treatment-resistant depression. Administration once daily in the evening is specially defined in the package insert of SYMBYAX® (olanzapine and fluoxetine capsules; Eli Lilly & Co).
Drugs Acting on Metabolism and Endocrine System
Levothyroxine Sodium

Levothyroxine sodium is a good therapeutic choice for hypothyroidism. Standard drug information resources recommend that levothyroxine sodium be taken half an hour before breakfast. However, a pilot-study in 12 patients with primary hypothyroidism demonstrated that taking the same dose of levothyroxine at bedtime, when compared with that during morning, might be better. Bedtime dosing was associated with higher thyroid hormone concentrations and lower thyroid stimulating hormone concentrations compared with morning dosing. A large double-blinded randomised study will need to be performed to confirm these results. A better GI uptake of levothyroxine sodium during night may be the underlying mechanism for the findings of this study.[59] Taking medication at bedtime instead of in the morning could have major implications for many thyroid patients.
Hypoglycaemic Drugs

Patients with diabetes mellitus should be offered individualised therapy. Hypoglycaemic effects of glimepiride, pioglitazone and rosiglitazone are regardless of the administration time.[60] However, Glucotrol XL (glipizide controlled-release tablet; Pfizer), Avandaryl® (rosiglitazone maleate and glimepiride tablets; GlaxoSmithKline) and Diamicron MR® (gliclazide modified release tablets; Les Laboratoires Servier, Gidy, France) should be given once daily with breakfast. Disturbances of the gut such as diarrhoea, constipation, indigestion and nausea can be avoided or minimised if gliclazide modified release tablet is taken with the breakfast.
Anti-asthma Drugs

Appropriate anti-asthma therapy can alleviate symptoms and reduce morbidity. Optimal dosing time is required for some anti-asthma drugs. Bambuterol (terbutaline prodrug) and montelukast are recommended to be taken at bedtime, as defined in the current package inserts of Bambec (bambuterol tablet; AstraZeneca Pharmaceutical Co Ltd) and Singulair® (montelukast sodium tablets; Merck & Co, Cramlington, UK). Evening administration of bambuterol in comparison with morning administration produced enhanced bronchodilator effect at 7 AM, which seemingly was because of the elevated terbutaline level maintained during the morning hours following evening administration. The mean 7 AM plasma terbutaline concentration was 15.6 nmol/l with evening bambuterol, while it was only 10.5 nmol/l with morning administration.[61] Evening dosing seems to be preferable for pranlukast and once-daily theophylline preparation so that it can achieve higher therapeutical levels at night and in the morning when asthmatics are at the greatest risk of developing bronchospasm.[62,63]
Non-steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are necessary in common ailments such as osteoarthritis and degenerative joint disease. Potential therapeutic benefit of NSAIDs might be gained by arranging optimal dosing time. Evening dosing of indomethacin sustained release was most effective in osteoarthritis patients with predominant nocturnal or morning pain whereas morning or noon ingestion was the most effective in patients with maximum afternoon or evening pain. The analgesic effect was increased by about 60% when the NSAID was taken at the preferred time (about 6 h prior to the usual time of day of worse osteoarthritic pain) compared with when it was ingested at the non-preferred times of the day.[64,65] With regard to the safety profile, a double-blind, cross-over trial of a 3-week duration involving 66 patients concluded that adverse effects were consistently greater in occurrence and in severity when indomethacin sustained release was ingested at 8 AM than at any other time of the day.[66] Morning dosing of ketoprofen controlled release (200 mg) increased the efficacy without reducing the tolerability in patients with osteoarthrosis when compared with evening dosing. The reduction in the degree of pain in the afternoon and in the evening was significantly higher for the morning dose.[66] However, total and GI side effects were twofold greater in patients taking ketoprofen in the morning than at night, as described in a double-blind trial with 118 osteoarthritis outpatients receiving a 200 mg ketoprofen slow-release tablet.[67] Bruguerollea concluded that evening dosing of NSAIDs would be better tolerated by diurnally active persons compared with the morning dosing and patients with high risk of GI irritation should be advised to avoid taking NSAID early in the morning.[68] As for celecoxib (a cyclooxygenase-2 specific inhibitor), the efficacy of regimen (200 mg once daily) in the management of osteoarthritis of the knee or hip is regardless of the dosing time.[69]
Discussion

It is particularly noteworthy that a difference between administration schedules (morning vs. evening) has been found where it is not expected, i.e. with amlodipine, a drug with a long half-life of 35–45 h. Thus, it indicates that all long-lasting agents should be properly studied to evaluate the safety and efficacy when they are administrated in the morning or in the evening.

Chronopharmacokinetics refers to time-dependent changes in kinetics, which may proceed from circadian variations at each step, e.g. absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion. Interestingly, the optimal dosing time sometimes is not the time expected from the perspective of chronopharmacokinetics. Aspirin is a representative example. Its bioavailability in the morning is twice as high as in the afternoon.[70] Taking into account this chronopharmacokinetic characteristic, researches in early years recommended morning dosing of aspirin. However, recent evidence-based data favour bedtime dosing of low-dose aspirin.[53-55]

The administration time-dependent efficacy seems not a common feature for drugs within the similar therapeutic or structural class. It is related to kinds of drugs, pathophysiologic status, clinical symptoms and feedback from patients. Typical cases were observed with PPIs, CCBs, ARBs, ACEIs and beta-blockers. Further studies are needed to determine whether administration time-dependent effects will be observed with drugs of which morning and evening dosing have not been compared. For example, whether administration time-dependent effects of losartan exist has not been documented, although the relevant studies have been conducted for the other ARBs (i.e. irbesartan, valsartan, telmisartan, olmesartan medoxomil and candesartan cilexetil).

In clinical practice, members of MTM need to know the basis for chronotherapy of diseases. For example, the non-dipper circadian BP pattern represents a risk factor for left ventricular hypertrophy, microalbuminuria, cerebrovascular disease, congestive heart failure, vascular dementia and myocardial infarction. The normalisation of the circadian BP pattern to a dipper profile is a novel therapeutic goal.[71] Thus, if a drug administered at bedtime as opposed to morning dosing improved the sleep time-relative BP decline towards a more dipper pattern without loss in 24-h efficacy, optimum dosing time of this drug is at bedtime.

Therapeutic strategies in resistant diseases (e.g. resistant hypertension) include adding another drug or changing drugs for a better synergic combination. However, the situation might be improved if chronotherapeutic approach is introduced. For instance, Hermida et al.[72] evaluated the impact on the circadian pattern of BP by modifying the dosing time without increasing the number of prescribed drugs. Results indicate that, in patients with resistant hypertension, dosing time may be more important for BP control and for the proper modelling of the circadian BP pattern rather than just changing the drug combination.

Biological rhythm-dependent differences in the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of once-daily medications may be altered with other factors such as comorbidity conditions and aging. For example, chronic renal failure might result in different administration time-dependent effects of isradipine sustained release on BP in hypertensive patients.[10,11] Chronopharmacological variations may be related to ageing. For example, administration-time effects of telmisartan were detected only in mid-aged but not in young subjects.[26,27]

Sidebar: Review Criteria

Relevant literature was identified by performing Pubmed and Google Scholar searches until end of 2007. The MeSH terms used involve drug administration schedule, chronotherapy, chronopharmacology, circadian rhythm, morning and evening dosing and clinical trials. Other key words include chronopharmacokinetics, chronopharmacodynamics, morning vs. evening administration, morning and bedtime dosing and administration time-dependent effects. Available related package inserts and prescribing information were also referenced.

Message for the Clinic

Better efficacy and lower incidence of adverse drug reactions may be achieved by optimal timing of once-daily medicines. Doctors, pharmacists and nurses have a lot to relearn about how to use both old and new once-daily drugs effectively, and promote medication compliance by providing education to the patient regarding the differences between conventional and chronotherapeutic approaches, and pathophysiologic benefits of chronotherapy.
Acknowledgements

We also thank H. Grassos for data on administration time-dependent effects of candesartan. Dr H. Grassos is from Hypertension unit, Western Attica General Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Funding Information

Funding for the article is provided by Zhejiang Provincial Bureau of Education (No. 20070227), Zhejiang Medical Association (No. 2007ZYC18) and Association of Zhejiang Hospital Administration (No. 2007AZHA-KEB312).
Author Contributions

L.-L. Zhu and Q. Zhou put forward the viewpoint and designed this study; Q. Zhou, X.-F. Yan performed the literature review and data analysis/interpretation; L.-L. Zhu and Q. Zhou wrote the paper and S. Zeng was involved in the critical revision of the article.
Reprint Address

Quan Zhou, Pharmacist Clinical Specialist, Department of Clinical Pharmacy, The 2nd Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Zhejiang 310009, China; Tel.: + 86 571 8778 3891; Fax: + 86 571 87213864; Email: zhouquan142602@zju.edu.cn

Conclusions

Members of MTM should know what kind of drug has requirement for optimal dosing time, and realize that better efficacy and lower incidence of ADRs may be achieved by rational arrangement of administration schedule. In order to promote medication compliance, it is essential to provide patient education regarding differences between conventional and chronotherapeutic approaches and pathophysiologic benefits of chronotherapy. For those once-daily medications without specific requirements for dosing time, they should be taken at the same time every day. It should also be borne in mind that medication compliance is a matter-of-course concern even if there is optimal time to take once-daily medications according to the chronotherapy principles.