Drug Safety

, Volume 12, Issue 6, pp 359–363 | Cite as

How Important Is Therapeutic Drug Monitoring in the Prediction and Avoidance of Adverse Reactions?

  • Chris A. Gentry
  • Keith A. Rodvold
Leading Article


TDM has greatly contributed to explaining and minimising the toxicity of agents such as theophylline, phenytoin, aminoglycosides and digoxin. The significant use of drugs with narrow therapeutic ranges will continue to require TDM resources to be available and convenient. Improved methods of characterising drug toxicities using pharmacokinetic parameters will extend the use of TDM to effectively optimise the dosage regimens of additional toxic therapies such as antineoplastics and certain investigational agents.


Digoxin Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Suramin Digoxin Concentration Serum Drug Concentration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Steel K, Gertman PM, Crescenzi C, et al. Iatrogenic illness on a general medical service at a university hospital. N Engl J Med 1981; 304: 638–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Classen DC, Pestotnik SL, Evans RS, et al. Computerized surveillance of adverse drug events in hospital patients. JAMA 1991; 266: 2847–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Leape LL, Brennan TA, Laird N, et al. The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients. N Engl J Med 1991; 324: 377–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tyler LS, Nickman NA. Hospital pharmacy compliance with JCAHO standards and ASHP guidelines for reporting adverse drug reactions. Am J Hosp Pharm 1992; 49: 845–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schneider JK, Mion LC, Frengley JD. Adverse drug reactions in an elderly outpatient population. Am J Hosp Pharm 1992; 49: 90–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Noone P, Parsons TMC, Pattison JR, et al. Experience in monitoring gentamicin therapy during treatment of serious Gram-negative sepsis. BMJ 1974; 1: 477–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moore RD, Smith CR, Lietman PS. The association of aminoglycoside plasma levels with mortality in patients with Gram-negative bacteremia. J Infect Dis 1984; 149: 443–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moore RD, Smith CR, Lietman PS. Association of aminoglycoside plasma levels with therapeutic outcome in Gram-negative pneumonia. Am J Med 1984; 77: 657–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bertino JS, Booker LA, Franck PA, et al. Incidence of and significant risk factors for aminoglycoside-associated nephrotoxicity in patients dosed by using individualized pharmacokinetic monitoring. J Infect Dis 1993; 167: 173–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dahlgren JG, Anderson ET, Hewitt WL. Gentamicin blood levels: a guide to nephrotoxicity. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1975; 8: 58–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Smith CR, Maxwell RR, Edwards CQ, et al. Nephrotoxicity induced by gentamicin and amikacin. John Hopkins Med J 1978; 142: 85–90Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boucher BA, Coffey BC, Kuhl DA, et al. Algorithm for assessing renal dysfunction risk in critically ill trauma patients receiving aminoglycosides. Am J Surg 1990; 160: 473–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Smith CR, Moore RD, Lietman PS. Studies of risk factors for aminoglycoside nephrotoxicity. Am J Kidney Dis 1986; 8: 308–13PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jaresko GS, Boucher BA, Dole EJ, et al. Risk of renal dysfunction in critically ill trauma patients receiving aminoglycosides. Clin Pharm 1989; 8: 43–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Park HM, Chen IW, Manitasas GT, et al. Clinical evaluation of radioimmunoassay of digoxin. J Nucl Med 1973; 14: 531–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Smith TW, Haber E. Digoxin intoxication: the relationship of clinical presentation to serum digoxin concentration. J Clin Invest 1970; 49: 2377–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Evered DC, Chapman C. Plasma digoxin concentrations and digoxin toxicity in hospital patients. Br Heart J 1971; 33: 540–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Beller GA, Smith TW, Abelmann WH, et al. Digitalis intoxication. N Engl J Med 1971; 284: 989–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schumacher GE, Barr JT. Applying decision analysis in therapeutic drug monitoring: using decision trees to interpret serum theophylline concentrations. Clin Pharm 1986; 5: 325–33PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Paloucek FP, Rodvold KA. Evaluation of theophylline overdoses and toxicities. Ann Emerg Med 1988; 17: 135–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hendeles L, Weinberger M. Theophylline: a state of the art review. Pharmacotherapy 1983; 3: 2–44PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kutt H, Winters W, Kokenge R, et al. Diphenylhydantoin metabolism, blood levels, and toxicity. Arch Neurol 1964; 11: 642–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cranford RE, Leppik IE, Patrick B, et al. Intravenous phenytoin: clinical and pharmacokinetic aspects. Neurology 1978; 28: 874–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Amdisen A. Serum level monitoring and clinical pharmacokinetics of lithium. Clin Pharmacokinet 1977; 2: 73–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rodighiero V. Therapeutic drug monitoring of cyclosporin. Clin Pharmacokinet 1989; 16; 27–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bootman JL, Wertheimer AL, Zaske DE, et al. Individualizing gentamicin dosage regimens in burn patients with Gram-negative septicemia: a cost-benefit analysis. J Pharm Sci 1979; 68: 267–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sveska KJ, Roffe BD, Solomon DK, et al. Outcome of patients treated by an aminoglycoside pharmacokinetic dosing service. Am J Hosp Pharm 1985; 42: 2472–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Crist KD, Nahata MC, Ety J. Positive impact of a therapeutic drug-monitoring program on total aminoglycoside dose and cost of hospitalization. Ther Drug Monit 1987; 9: 306–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Destache CJ, Meyer SK, Rowley KM. Does accepting pharmacokinetic recommendations impact hospitalization? A cost-benefit analysis. Ther Drug Monit 1990; 12: 427–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Burton ME, Ash CL, Hill DP, et al. A controlled trial of the cost benefit of computerized bayesian aminoglycoside administration. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1991; 49: 685–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Whipple JK, Ausman RK, Franson T, et al. Effect of individualized pharmacokinetic dosing on patient outcome. Crit Care Med 1991; 19: 1480–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ambrose PJ, Smith WE, Palarea ER. A decade of experience with a clinical pharmacokinetic s service. Am J Hosp Pharm 1988; 45: 1879–86PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Reid LD, Mckenna DA, Horn JR. Meta-analysis of research on the effect of clinical pharmacokinetics services on therapeutic drug monitoring. Am J Hosp Pharm 1989; 46: 945–51Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ellis RF, Stephens MA, Sharp GB. Evaluation of a pharmacy-managed warfarin-monitoring service to coordinate inpatient and outpatient therapy. Am J Hosp Pharm 1992; 49: 387–94PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Miller AA, Tolley EA, Niell HB, et al. Pharmacodynamics of three daily infusions of etoposide in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1992; 31: 161–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Miller AA, Stewart CF, Tolley EA, et al. Clinical pharmacodynamics of continuous-infusion etoposide. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1990; 25: 361–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ratain MJ, Mick R, Schilsky RL, et al. Pharmacologically based dosing of etoposide: a means of safely increasing dose intensity. J Clin Oncol 1991; 9: 1480–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ratain MJ, Schilsky RL, Choi KE, et al. Adaptive control of etoposide administration: impact of interpatient pharmaco-dynamic variability. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1989; 45: 226–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Trump DL, Egorin MJ, Forrest A, et al. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis of fluorouracil during 72-hour continuous infusion with and without dipyridamole. J Clin Oncol 1991; 9: 2027–35PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Forrest A, Masson E., Collins D. Validation of a new approach to comodelling population pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of myelosuppression. Proceedings of the 1992 Annual Meeting of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy; 1992 August 9–12: Toronto. Kansas City: American College of Clinical Pharmacy, 1992Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Piscitelli SC, Rodvold KA, Rushing DA, et al. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of doxorubicin in patients with small cell lung cancer. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1993; 53: 555–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Egorin MJ, Forrest A, Belani CP, et al. A limited sampling strategy for cyclophosphamide pharmacokinetics. Cancer Res 1989; 49: 3129–33PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Cooper MR, Lieberman R, La Rocca RV, et al. Adaptive control with feedback strategies for suramin dosing. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1992; 52: 11–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chris A. Gentry
    • 1
  • Keith A. Rodvold
    • 2
  1. 1.College of PharmacyUniversity of Illinois-ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Pharmacy Practice (M/C 886), Colleges of Pharmacy Rm 164 and MedicineThe University of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations