AIMS: Saliva, as a matrix, offers many benefits over blood in therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), in particular for infantile TDM. However, the accuracy of salivary TDM in infants remains an area of debate. This review explored the accuracy, applicability and advantages of using saliva TDM in infants and neonates. METHODS: Databases were searched up to and including September 2016. Studies were included based on PICO as follows: P: infants and neonates being treated with any medication, I: salivary TDM vs. C: traditional methods and O: accuracy, advantages/disadvantages and applicability to practice. Compounds were assessed by their physicochemical and pharmacokinetic properties, as well as published quantitative saliva monitoring data. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies and their respective 13 compounds were investigated. Four neutral and two acidic compounds, oxcarbazepine, primidone, fluconazole, busulfan, theophylline and phenytoin displayed excellent/very good correlation between blood plasma and saliva. Lamotrigine was the only basic compound to show excellent correlation with morphine exhibiting no correlation between saliva and blood plasma. Any compound with an acid dissociation constant (pKa) within physiological range (pH 6-8) gave a more varied response. CONCLUSION: There is significant potential for infantile saliva testing and in particular for neutral and weakly acidic compounds. Of the properties investigated, pKa was the most influential with both logP and protein binding having little effect on this correlation. To conclude, any compound with a pKa within physiological range (pH 6-8) should be considered with extra care, with the extraction and analysis method examined and optimized on a case-by-case basis.
AIMS: Saliva, as a matrix, offers many benefits over blood in therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), in particular for infantile TDM. However, the accuracy of salivary TDM in infants remains an area of debate. This review explored the accuracy, applicability and advantages of using saliva TDM in infants and neonates. METHODS: Databases were searched up to and including September 2016. Studies were included based on PICO as follows: P: infants and neonates being treated with any medication, I: salivary TDM vs. C: traditional methods and O: accuracy, advantages/disadvantages and applicability to practice. Compounds were assessed by their physicochemical and pharmacokinetic properties, as well as published quantitative saliva monitoring data. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies and their respective 13 compounds were investigated. Four neutral and two acidic compounds, oxcarbazepine, primidone, fluconazole, busulfan, theophylline and phenytoin displayed excellent/very good correlation between blood plasma and saliva. Lamotrigine was the only basic compound to show excellent correlation with morphine exhibiting no correlation between saliva and blood plasma. Any compound with an acid dissociation constant (pKa) within physiological range (pH 6-8) gave a more varied response. CONCLUSION: There is significant potential for infantile saliva testing and in particular for neutral and weakly acidic compounds. Of the properties investigated, pKa was the most influential with both logP and protein binding having little effect on this correlation. To conclude, any compound with a pKa within physiological range (pH 6-8) should be considered with extra care, with the extraction and analysis method examined and optimized on a case-by-case basis.
Authors: Nicole R Dobson; Xiaoxi Liu; Lawrence M Rhein; Robert A Darnall; Michael J Corwin; Betty L McEntire; Robert M Ward; Laura P James; Catherine M T Sherwin; Timothy C Heeren; Carl E Hunt Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2016-06-03 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Michael Tennison; Imran Ali; Michael V Miles; O'Neill D'Cruz; Bradley Vaughn; Robert Greenwood Journal: Ther Drug Monit Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 3.681
Authors: Ana García-Robles; Álvaro Solaz-García; Jorge Verdú-Andrés; José Luis Poveda Andrés; Antonio José Cañada-Martínez; Consuelo Cháfer Pericás; Henry Daniel Ponce-Rodriguez; Máximo Vento; Pilar Sáenz González Journal: Eur J Pediatr Date: 2022-09-28 Impact factor: 3.860
Authors: Amadou Samb; Matthijs Kruizinga; Younes Tallahi; Michiel van Esdonk; Willemijn van Heel; Gertjan Driessen; Yuma Bijleveld; Rik Stuurman; Adam Cohen; Anton van Kaam; Timo R de Haan; Ron Mathôt Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2021-11-07 Impact factor: 3.716
Authors: Domenico Umberto De Rose; Sara Cairoli; Marco Dionisi; Alessandra Santisi; Luca Massenzi; Bianca Maria Goffredo; Carlo Dionisi-Vici; Andrea Dotta; Cinzia Auriti Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2020-08-17 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Matthijs D Kruizinga; Rob G J A Zuiker; Kirsten R Bergmann; Annelies C Egas; Adam F Cohen; Gijs W E Santen; Michiel J van Esdonk Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2021-12-09 Impact factor: 3.716
Authors: Giusy Matzeu; Gili R S Naveh; Siddhart Agarwal; Jeffery A Roshko; Nicholas A Ostrovsky-Snider; Bradley S Napier; Fiorenzo G Omenetto Journal: Adv Sci (Weinh) Date: 2021-03-18 Impact factor: 16.806