Quality Assurance when Using Therapeutic Drug Monitoring: A Lamotrigine Split Sample Method to Reflect Comparability

Roy G Beran
{"title":"Quality Assurance when Using Therapeutic Drug Monitoring: A Lamotrigine Split Sample Method to Reflect Comparability","authors":"Roy G Beran","doi":"10.23880/apct-16000149","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: Therapeutic drug monitoring can optimise patient outcomes if the Anti-Epileptic Medication (AEM) level is received in a timely fashion. When choosing a laboratory (lab) to measure levels, the treating physician must incorporate quality assurances so as to be confident that the results are reliable and concordant with results accepted from the current lab. The study aims to generate a practical example of how one can improve the use of drug monitoring in patients with epilepsy. Methods: A split-sampling procedure was used to analyse the AEM levels reported by two different labs. The results were categorised in accordance with the physician’s defined therapeutic range: sub-therapeutic: <10mg/L; therapeutic: 10-16mg/L; and supra-therapeutic: >16mg/L, to determine if categorisation varied between the labs. Results were further evaluated to compensate for absolute and/or clinically significant differences. Results: Categories were concordant for 43/50 (86%) of results. Of the 7/50 (14%) category discordant results, five (10% of results) were not clinically significant. In only 4% (2/50) of patients was the discordance sufficient to have possibly generated a treatment modification depending upon the patient’s clinical picture. Overall, the absolute difference in the levels reported by the two labs was neither significant nor statistically different. Conclusion: Split-sampling studies are a practical way of ensuring physician confidence and demonstrating quality assurance when changing labs.","PeriodicalId":313915,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Pharmacology &amp; Clinical Trials","volume":"88 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Pharmacology &amp; Clinical Trials","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23880/apct-16000149","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Therapeutic drug monitoring can optimise patient outcomes if the Anti-Epileptic Medication (AEM) level is received in a timely fashion. When choosing a laboratory (lab) to measure levels, the treating physician must incorporate quality assurances so as to be confident that the results are reliable and concordant with results accepted from the current lab. The study aims to generate a practical example of how one can improve the use of drug monitoring in patients with epilepsy. Methods: A split-sampling procedure was used to analyse the AEM levels reported by two different labs. The results were categorised in accordance with the physician’s defined therapeutic range: sub-therapeutic: <10mg/L; therapeutic: 10-16mg/L; and supra-therapeutic: >16mg/L, to determine if categorisation varied between the labs. Results were further evaluated to compensate for absolute and/or clinically significant differences. Results: Categories were concordant for 43/50 (86%) of results. Of the 7/50 (14%) category discordant results, five (10% of results) were not clinically significant. In only 4% (2/50) of patients was the discordance sufficient to have possibly generated a treatment modification depending upon the patient’s clinical picture. Overall, the absolute difference in the levels reported by the two labs was neither significant nor statistically different. Conclusion: Split-sampling studies are a practical way of ensuring physician confidence and demonstrating quality assurance when changing labs.
使用治疗药物监测时的质量保证:拉莫三嗪分裂样品法以反映可比性
目的:如果及时收到抗癫痫药物(AEM)水平,治疗药物监测可以优化患者的预后。当选择一个实验室(实验室)来测量水平时,治疗医生必须结合质量保证,以确信结果是可靠的,并与当前实验室接受的结果一致。这项研究的目的是产生一个实际的例子,说明如何改善癫痫患者药物监测的使用。方法:采用分选方法对两个不同实验室报告的AEM水平进行分析。根据医生定义的治疗范围对结果进行分类:亚治疗:16mg/L,以确定实验室之间的分类是否不同。进一步评估结果以弥补绝对和/或临床显著差异。结果:分类一致性为43/50(86%)。在7/50(14%)类不一致结果中,5例(10%)无临床意义。只有4%(2/50)的患者的不一致足以根据患者的临床情况可能产生治疗修改。总的来说,两个实验室报告的水平的绝对差异既不显著,也没有统计学差异。结论:分采样研究是一种实用的方法,确保医生的信心,并在更换实验室时展示质量保证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信