OBJECTIVE: In general, drugs are used in accordance with an approved dosage regimen in expectation of an appropriate balance between efficacy and toxicity. However, dose control of drugs with a narrow therapeutic range and marked intersubject variability in pharmacokinetics should be established through individualization of dosing based on therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). The purpose of this study was to examine differences between the approved dosage regimen and the doses of antiarrhythmic drugs and digoxin used in clinical practice and to examine the influence of TDM on dosing. METHODS: Prescription research of antiarrhythmic drugs was performed at five national hospitals in Japan. Prescriptions for antiarrhythmic drugs (cibenzoline, disopyramide, pirmenol, mexiletine, aprindine, flecainide, pilsicainide, amiodarone and digoxin) were counted for the study period. The mean dose and dose distribution of the drugs were determined in each hospital. Comparisons were made of mean dose obtained in the study with the dosage approved by the authority. In addition, the percentage of patients that received TDM was determined. RESULTS: A difference was seen between the approved dosage and the actual dose. For all drugs except flecainide, the mean dose was smaller than the approved dosage. For all drugs except digoxin, remarkable variations were seen in the dose distribution among the hospitals. Digoxin showed a similar dose distribution among the five hospitals. Overall, the percentage of patients that received TDM was low except for Hospital A. However, TDM of digoxin was relatively common at four of the hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: It is concluded that, with the exception of digoxin, the appropriate dosing regimen for antiarrhythmic drugs is not yet established. The establishment of appropriate dosing regimens for antiarrhythmic drugs requires the more widespread adoption of TDM.
OBJECTIVE: In general, drugs are used in accordance with an approved dosage regimen in expectation of an appropriate balance between efficacy and toxicity. However, dose control of drugs with a narrow therapeutic range and marked intersubject variability in pharmacokinetics should be established through individualization of dosing based on therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). The purpose of this study was to examine differences between the approved dosage regimen and the doses of antiarrhythmic drugs and digoxin used in clinical practice and to examine the influence of TDM on dosing. METHODS: Prescription research of antiarrhythmic drugs was performed at five national hospitals in Japan. Prescriptions for antiarrhythmic drugs (cibenzoline, disopyramide, pirmenol, mexiletine, aprindine, flecainide, pilsicainide, amiodarone and digoxin) were counted for the study period. The mean dose and dose distribution of the drugs were determined in each hospital. Comparisons were made of mean dose obtained in the study with the dosage approved by the authority. In addition, the percentage of patients that received TDM was determined. RESULTS: A difference was seen between the approved dosage and the actual dose. For all drugs except flecainide, the mean dose was smaller than the approved dosage. For all drugs except digoxin, remarkable variations were seen in the dose distribution among the hospitals. Digoxin showed a similar dose distribution among the five hospitals. Overall, the percentage of patients that received TDM was low except for Hospital A. However, TDM of digoxin was relatively common at four of the hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: It is concluded that, with the exception of digoxin, the appropriate dosing regimen for antiarrhythmic drugs is not yet established. The establishment of appropriate dosing regimens for antiarrhythmic drugs requires the more widespread adoption of TDM.