Literature DB >> 16638922

Occurrence and impact of unanticipated variation in intravenous methotrexate dosing.

Christopher S Parshuram1, L Lee Dupuis, Teresa To, Sheila S Weitzman, Gideon Koren, Andreas Laupacis.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Studies using direct measurement suggest that the doses of up to 65% of drug infusions are outside industry standards. These preparation-associated errors occur despite routine safety procedures. As of April 5, 2006, the clinical impact of these errors had not been evaluated.
OBJECTIVE: To measure the occurrence and associated clinical outcomes of variations in intravenous methotrexate dosing.
METHODS: A prospective observational study was performed on 47 methotrexate infusions of 800 mg/m2 that were administered to 19 children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Serum methotrexate concentrations were measured at the end of the infusions, which were administered over 24 hours. The total methotrexate dose was determined by direct measurement of the concentration and the volume of each infusion.
RESULTS: Dosing errors greater than or equal to 10% occurred in 11 (23%) infusions and ranged from -61% to 55% of the ideal dose. Repeated measures regression analysis found the measured total methotrexate dose was not significantly associated with the serum methotrexate concentration (p = 0.58) or with clinical toxicities. The methotrexate dose administered over the last hours of infusion (p = 0.006) and the serum creatinine level at diagnosis (p = 0.05) were the most significant predictors of the methotrexate concentration. High methotrexate concentrations were significantly associated with increased hepatic aminotransferase levels; however, the degree of elevation was of limited clinical relevance.
CONCLUSIONS: While unexpected errors in drug dosing are more common than is suggested by other methods, the clinical impact observed in this model of methotrexate infusion was not demonstrably greater than medication errors described by other methods. Subsequent studies in this model of dosing error will require larger sample sizes, and other drugs should be evaluated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16638922     DOI: 10.1345/aph.1G334

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Pharmacother        ISSN: 1060-0280            Impact factor:   3.154


  8 in total

1.  Systematic evaluation of errors occurring during the preparation of intravenous medication.

Authors:  Christopher S Parshuram; Teresa To; Winnie Seto; Angela Trope; Gideon Koren; Andreas Laupacis
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2008-01-01       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Drug formulations that require less than 0.1 mL of stock solution to prepare doses for infants and children.

Authors:  Navjeet Uppal; Baseer Yasseen; Winnie Seto; Christopher S Parshuram
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2011-01-24       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic bioequivalence between regular human insulin (rDNA origin) in 0.9% sodium chloride ready-to-use infusion 1 U/mL and 100 U/mL concentrate diluted to 1 U/mL in healthy males.

Authors:  Marcus Hompesch; Aleksandra Hawryluk; Moises Hernandez; Beena Uchil; Alyssa Wilmington; Lucas Peterson
Journal:  Diabetes Obes Metab       Date:  2021-09-08       Impact factor: 6.408

Review 4.  Accuracy of intravenous and enteral preparations involving small volumes for paediatric use: a review.

Authors:  L P Ainscough; J L Ford; C W Morecroft; M Peak; M A Turner; A J Nunn; M Roberts
Journal:  Eur J Hosp Pharm       Date:  2017-01-04

5.  Assessment of final product dosing accuracy when using volumetric technique in the preparation of chemotherapy.

Authors:  Lindsey B Poppe; Scott W Savage; Stephen F Eckel
Journal:  J Oncol Pharm Pract       Date:  2014-09-02       Impact factor: 1.416

Review 6.  Systematic evidence review of rates and burden of harm of intravenous admixture drug preparation errors in healthcare settings.

Authors:  Nancy Hedlund; Idal Beer; Torsten Hoppe-Tichy; Patricia Trbovich
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-12-28       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Impact of technology-assisted versus manual sterile compounding on safety and efficiency in a Canadian community hospital.

Authors:  Mark Fan; Danny Yang; Becky Ng; Jocelyn Jackson; Katherine Bouris; Sharon Eng; Edith Rolko; Patricia Trbovich
Journal:  Am J Health Syst Pharm       Date:  2022-09-22       Impact factor: 2.980

8.  Biases affecting injected doses of an experimental drug during clinical trials.

Authors:  Nancy Perrottet; Françoise Brunner-Ferber; Eric Grouzmann; François Spertini; Jérôme Biollaz; Thierry Buclin; Nicolas Widmer
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2016-07-16       Impact factor: 2.279

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.