Hannah Yejin Kim1,2,3, Kenneth C Byashalira4, Scott K Heysell5, Anne-Grete Märtson6, Stellah G Mpagama4, Prakruti Rao5, Marieke G G Sturkenboom6, Jan-Willem C Alffenaar1,2,3. 1. Faculty of Medicine and Health, School of Pharmacy, University of Sydney. 2. Westmead Hospital. 3. Marie Bashir Institute for Infectious Diseases, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 4. Kibong'oto Infectious Disease Hospital, Moshi, Tanzania. 5. Division of Infectious Diseases and International Health, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia; and. 6. Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) supports personalized treatment. For successful implementation, TDM must have a turnaround time suited to the clinical needs of patients and their health care settings. Here, the authors share their views of how a TDM strategy can be tailored to specific settings and patient groups. METHODS: The authors selected distinct scenarios for TDM: high-risk, complex, and/or critically ill patient population; outpatients; and settings with limited laboratory resources. In addition to the TDM scenario approach, they explored potential issues with the legal framework governing dose escalation. RESULTS: The most important issues identified in the different scenarios are that critically ill patients require rapid turnaround time, outpatients require an easy sampling procedure for the sample matrix and sample collection times, settings with limited laboratory resources necessitate setting-specific analytic techniques, and all scenarios warrant a legal framework to capture the use of escalated dosages, ideally with the use of trackable dosing software. CONCLUSIONS: To benefit patients, TDM strategies need to be tailored to the intended population. Strategies can be adapted for rapid turnaround time for critically ill patients, convenient sampling for outpatients, and feasibility for those in settings with limited laboratory resources.
BACKGROUND: Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) supports personalized treatment. For successful implementation, TDM must have a turnaround time suited to the clinical needs of patients and their health care settings. Here, the authors share their views of how a TDM strategy can be tailored to specific settings and patient groups. METHODS: The authors selected distinct scenarios for TDM: high-risk, complex, and/or critically ill patient population; outpatients; and settings with limited laboratory resources. In addition to the TDM scenario approach, they explored potential issues with the legal framework governing dose escalation. RESULTS: The most important issues identified in the different scenarios are that critically ill patients require rapid turnaround time, outpatients require an easy sampling procedure for the sample matrix and sample collection times, settings with limited laboratory resources necessitate setting-specific analytic techniques, and all scenarios warrant a legal framework to capture the use of escalated dosages, ideally with the use of trackable dosing software. CONCLUSIONS: To benefit patients, TDM strategies need to be tailored to the intended population. Strategies can be adapted for rapid turnaround time for critically ill patients, convenient sampling for outpatients, and feasibility for those in settings with limited laboratory resources.
Authors: A-G Märtson; M G G Sturkenboom; J Stojanova; D Cattaneo; W Hope; D Marriott; A E Patanwala; C A Peloquin; S G Wicha; T S van der Werf; T Tängdén; J A Roberts; M N Neely; J-W C Alffenaar Journal: Clin Microbiol Infect Date: 2020-03-21 Impact factor: 8.067
Authors: Michael J Rybak; Jennifer Le; Thomas P Lodise; Donald P Levine; John S Bradley; Catherine Liu; Bruce A Mueller; Manjunath P Pai; Annie Wong-Beringer; John C Rotschafer; Keith A Rodvold; Holly D Maples; Benjamin M Lomaestro Journal: Am J Health Syst Pharm Date: 2020-05-19 Impact factor: 2.637
Authors: Simone H J van den Elsen; Lisette M Oostenbrink; Scott K Heysell; Daiki Hira; Daan J Touw; Onno W Akkerman; Mathieu S Bolhuis; Jan-Willem C Alffenaar Journal: Ther Drug Monit Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 3.681
Authors: A J Ullmann; J M Aguado; S Arikan-Akdagli; D W Denning; A H Groll; K Lagrou; C Lass-Flörl; R E Lewis; P Munoz; P E Verweij; A Warris; F Ader; M Akova; M C Arendrup; R A Barnes; C Beigelman-Aubry; S Blot; E Bouza; R J M Brüggemann; D Buchheidt; J Cadranel; E Castagnola; A Chakrabarti; M Cuenca-Estrella; G Dimopoulos; J Fortun; J-P Gangneux; J Garbino; W J Heinz; R Herbrecht; C P Heussel; C C Kibbler; N Klimko; B J Kullberg; C Lange; T Lehrnbecher; J Löffler; O Lortholary; J Maertens; O Marchetti; J F Meis; L Pagano; P Ribaud; M Richardson; E Roilides; M Ruhnke; M Sanguinetti; D C Sheppard; J Sinkó; A Skiada; M J G T Vehreschild; C Viscoli; O A Cornely Journal: Clin Microbiol Infect Date: 2018-03-12 Impact factor: 8.067
Authors: Anette Veringa; Mendy Ter Avest; Lambert F R Span; Edwin R van den Heuvel; Daan J Touw; Jan G Zijlstra; Jos G W Kosterink; Tjip S van der Werf; Jan-Willem C Alffenaar Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2016-09-06 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Jackelien E van der Mast; Maarten W Nijsten; Jan-Willem C Alffenaar; Daan J Touw; Wouter Bult Journal: Pharmacol Res Perspect Date: 2019-06-26
Authors: J W C Alffenaar; S L Stocker; L Davies Forsman; A Garcia-Prats; S K Heysell; R E Aarnoutse; O W Akkerman; A Aleksa; R van Altena; W Arrazola de Oñata; P K Bhavani; N Van't Boveneind-Vrubleuskaya; A C C Carvalho; R Centis; J M Chakaya; D M Cirillo; J G Cho; L D Ambrosio; M P Dalcolmo; P Denti; K Dheda; G J Fox; A C Hesseling; H Y Kim; C U Köser; B J Marais; I Margineanu; A G Märtson; M Munoz Torrico; H M Nataprawira; C W M Ong; R Otto-Knapp; C A Peloquin; D R Silva; R Ruslami; P Santoso; R M Savic; R Singla; E M Svensson; A Skrahina; D van Soolingen; S Srivastava; M Tadolini; S Tiberi; T A Thomas; Z F Udwadia; D H Vu; W Zhang; S G Mpagama; T Schön; G B Migliori Journal: Int J Tuberc Lung Dis Date: 2022-06-01 Impact factor: 3.427