Aggregated N-of-1 trials for unlicensed medicines for small populations: an assessment of a trial with ephedrine for myasthenia gravis.

BACKGROUND: Inexpensive medicines with a long history of use may currently be prescribed off-label for rare indications. Reimbursement is at the discretion of health insurance companies, and may be unpredictable. The example addressed was ephedrine as add-on treatment for myasthenia gravis. Stakeholders from academia, a patient organization, the Dutch National Health Care Institute (NHCI) and Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board (MEB) advised on the trial design. The NHCI and MEB agreed to provide scientific advice on the suitability of the evidence generated by the trial, for regulatory decisions. This paper describes the feasibility of the trial and the utility of its aggregated results. RESULTS: The trialists experienced the trial as feasible. Retrospective interviews showed that the trial as performed was acceptable to patients. The treatment effect in the primary outcome measure, muscle strength, was statistically significant when inferred to the population level, though the effect size was modest. Secondary outcomes were statistically significant in a preplanned, fixed effects analysis within the four patients. The NHCI advised that it could potentially make reimbursement decisions based on the Fitting Evidence framework, should the trialists decide to apply for reimbursement. The MEB advised that for a licensing decision, the N-of-1 design is a last-resort option for demonstrating treatment benefit in a rare disease. N-of-1 trials alone do not provide enough evidence on potential risk. The MEB found the current trial inconclusive. It suggested doing a 2-armed trial of longer duration, possibly with a different outcome measure (postponement of corticosteroid use). It suggested engaging a consultancy or commercial sponsor, should the trialists decide to seek market authorization of the drug. CONCLUSIONS: In theory, evidence from aggregated N-of-1 trials is suitable for use in licensing and reimbursement decisions. The current example illustrates differences in interpretation of N-of-1 results by health authorities. In the era of personalized medicine, consensus is required on the interpretation of data from study designs geared to small groups. Demonstrating effectiveness of inexpensive medicines in small populations may require involvement of non-commercial parties, to preserve affordability.

Ephedrine treatment for autoimmune myasthenia gravis.

We studied the effect and safety of ephedrine as add-on treatment for patients with myasthenia gravis with acetylcholine receptor antibodies (AChR MG), who do not sufficiently respond to standard treatment. Four patients with AChR MG were included in a placebo-controlled, double-blind, and randomised, multiple crossover series of n-of-1 trials. Each n-of-1 trial consisted of 3 cycles, in which two 5-day intervention periods were followed by 2 days washout. In each cycle, ephedrine 50 mg daily in 2 doses was compared with placebo in the alternate treatment period. Primary outcome was a change in QMG score. Add-on treatment with ephedrine compared with placebo improved QMG score by 1.0 point (95% confidence interval 0.21-1.79), which was significant for the group of trial patients as well as for the population treatment effect. Ephedrine also showed a significant trial average treatment effect for all secondary outcomes, improving MG Composite by 2.7, MG-ADL by 1.0 and VAS score for muscle strength by 1.1. Adverse events were mild and included palpitations, tremor and restlessness. Although all ECGs were normal, ephedrine prolonged the corrected QT interval. Ephedrine as add-on treatment for myasthenia gravis resulted in a small but consistent reduction of symptoms and weakness in patients with moderate disease severity.

Ephedrine as add-on therapy for patients with myasthenia gravis: protocol for a series of randomised, placebo-controlled n-of-1 trials.

INTRODUCTION: Myasthenia gravis (MG), a rare neuromuscular disease, is often initially treated using acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. Patients who do not respond adequately depend on the use of corticosteroids or other immunosuppressive medication, but these may have serious side effects. Clinical observations suggest that ephedrine can diminish, postpone or even prevent the need for immunosuppressive therapy when added to acetylcholinesterase inhibitors or low-dose prednisone. In the Netherlands, ephedrine is not licensed for MG nor is reimbursement guaranteed. MG is a rare condition, and ephedrine might be indicated only in a subset of patients. Thus, randomised controlled trials comparing large groups are difficult to conduct. We, therefore, aim to aggregate data from a small series of n-of-1 trials (also known as single patient trials) to assess the effect of ephedrine as add-on treatment for MG. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Single-centre, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomised, multiple crossover n-of-1 studies in 4 adult patients with generalised MG who show inadequate improvement on pyridostigmine and/or immunosuppressive drugs. Each n-of-1 trial has 3 cycles of two 5-day intervention periods. TREATMENT: 25 mg ephedrine or placebo, twice daily. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG) test. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: fixed effects linear model for QMG for all patients combined. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical: effects on MG-Composite and MG-Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) scales; QMG at individual level; adverse events. Acceptability of trial design: number of patients eligible and enrolled; number of treatment cycles completed; patients' and caregivers' experiences. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Leiden University Medical Center, No. P14.108. Results of the trial will be reported in a peer-reviewed publication. Regulatory stakeholders will comment on the suitability of the trial for market authorisation and reimbursement purposes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This study is registered under EudraCT number 2014-001355-23, protocol no. 40960, V.1.0, registration date 27 March 2014.

Authors' response to the letter from Kalleian Eserian et al.

This letter is a response to the comments of Kalleian Eserian et al. on our study relating to the accuracy, precision and sustainability of six tablet splitters and a kitchen knife as an alternative to breaking paracetamol 500mg tablets by hand. We would like to inform the readers of International Journal of Pharmaceutics that our study focused on splitting tablets with a mechanical tool rather than breaking tablets by hand. Although publications on hand breaking tablets were not cited for this reason, we are familiar with the conclusions of these publications. This is especially true for the publications that were written by direct colleagues from the department of the corresponding author e.g., Van Santen et al. and Van der Steen et al.

The accuracy, precision and sustainability of different techniques for tablet subdivision: breaking by hand and the use of tablet splitters or a kitchen knife.

INTRODUCTION: Tablets are frequently subdivided to lower the dose, to facilitate swallowing by e.g. children or older people or to save costs. Splitting devices are commonly used when hand breaking is difficult or painful. METHODS: Three techniques for tablet subdivision were investigated: hand breaking, tablet splitter, kitchen knife. A best case drug (paracetamol), tablet (round, flat, uncoated, 500 mg) and operator (24-year student) were applied. Hundred tablets were subdivided by hand and by three devices of each of the following types: Fit & Healthy, Health Care Logistics, Lifetime, PillAid, PillTool, Pilomat tablet splitter; Blokker kitchen knife. The intra and inter device accuracy, precision and sustainability were investigated. The compliance to (adapted) regulatory requirements was investigated also. RESULTS: The accuracy and precision of hand broken tablets was 104/97% resp. 2.8/3.2% (one part per tablet considered; parts right/left side operator). The right/left accuracies of the splitting devices varied between 60 and 133%; the precisions 4.0 and 29.6%. The devices did not deteriorate over 100-fold use. Only hand broken tablets complied with all regulatory requirements. CONCLUSION: Health care professionals should realize that tablet splitting may result in inaccurate dosing. Authorities should undertake appropriate measures to assure good function of tablet splitters and, where feasible, to reduce the need for their use.

Controlled release of morphine from a poloxamer 407 gel.

Treatment of painful ulcers is discouraging. Topical morphine has been described as a useful therapeutic adjunct in some patients. In the development of a new analgesic product, we studied the in vitro release characteristics of a new topical formulation containing 0.5% (w/w) morphine-HCl in a poloxamer 407 (P407) based gel. A diffusion cell was used for measurement of in vitro release characteristics. The donor compartment (DC) and the receptor compartment (RC) were separated by a 5000 Da cellulose acetate membrane. The morphine-HCl release from this developed P407 based gel followed zero-order kinetics with a constant release of 150 µg cm(-2)h(-1). Our results support the use of this P407 gel as a sustained release topical formulation in the pharmacological treatment of painful ulcers. Future research welcomes a formulation with release characteristics leading to less frequent application.

The combined use of disease activity and infliximab serum trough concentrations for early prediction of (non-)response to infliximab in rheumatoid arthritis.

AIM: Early prediction of (non-)response to infliximab therapy can improve therapeutic benefit by avoiding unnecessary periods of high disease activity during ineffective therapy. This prospective cohort study therefore aimed to study the predictive value of (1) disease activity alone and (2) infliximab serum trough concentrations in addition to disease activity 6 weeks after start of treatment for achieving low disease activity after 6 months. METHODS: Disease activity and infliximab serum trough concentrations were assessed in all rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients at 2, 6 and 26 weeks after initiation of infliximab therapy. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and Youden indices were used to calculate specificity for prediction of good response after 6 months while aiming for maximum sensitivity. RESULTS: Fifty-seven consecutive RA patients starting with infliximab therapy were included. After 6 months, 15 (26%, 95 % CI 15, 38%) patients reached good European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) response. A disease activity score <4.2 at 6 weeks after initiation of therapy was a moderate predictor for reaching EULAR response after 6 months (sensitivity 100%, specificity 49%). Infliximab serum trough concentrations (>2.5 mg l(-1)) as predictor complimentary to disease activity (<4.2) slightly increased the specificity from 49% to 54% without changing the sensitivity (100%). As 39% of the patients did not fulfill at least one of these criteria at week 6, these patients could already be switched to another therapy after 6 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of disease activity and infliximab serum trough concentrations could be a fair predictor to identify early (after 6 weeks) patients who have insufficient response after 6 months of therapy.

[Pitfalls in the treatment of neuropathic pain in patients with cancer]. / Valkuilen in de behandeling van neuropathische pijn bij patiënten met kanker.

Three patients with cancer experienced severe side-effects after starting anti-neuropathic pain therapy. All patients, 1 woman and 2 men aged between 69 and 71, fell or had problems with balance. These side-effects diminished after reducing the doses or stopping the medication. It seems that side-effects in patients with cancer are more common and more severe than in other populations with neuropathic pain, such as patients with diabetic neuropathy or postherpetic neuralgia. There is little research into the treatment of neuropathic pain in patients with cancer. In this patient group it is advisable to monitor the patient at least once a week for an optimal treatment and to prevent severe side-effects, especially in the first weeks after starting the treatment.

Anti-infliximab antibodies are already detectable in most patients with rheumatoid arthritis halfway through an infusion cycle: an open-label pharmacokinetic cohort study.

BACKGROUND: This study in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with infliximab describes prospectively the course of (anti)infliximab levels within an infusion cycle to assess at what moment patients develop low/no infliximab trough levels and/or detectable anti-infliximab levels. METHODS: Infliximab treated RA patients were included in this descriptive open-label cohort study. During one infusion cycle (anti-)infliximab levels were assessed just before and one hour after infusion, and subsequently at 50%, 75% and at the end of the infusion cycle (pre-infusion). RESULTS: 27 patients were included. The median infliximab levels decreased from 77.0 mg/l (p25-p75: 65-89) one hour after the infusion to pre-infusion levels of 0.0 mg/l (p25-p75: 0.0-3.1). In 7 (26%) patients pre-infusion anti-infliximab antibodies were detected; these antibodies were already present halfway through the infusion cycle in 5 of the 7 individuals. Patients with detectable pre-infusion anti-infliximab antibodies have significantly more often low/no infliximab levels (< 1 mg/l) halfway trough the infusion cycle (in 5/7 patients) compared to patients without detectable pre-infusion anti-infliximab antibodies (0/20 patients, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Most anti-infliximab forming patients have detectable anti-infliximab antibodies halfway through an infusion cycle, which implies that these patients are exposed to nontherapeutical infliximab levels during more than half of their infusion cycle. As none of the patients without anti-infliximab antibodies had no/low-infliximab levels halfway through the infusion cycle, the presence of pre-infusion anti-infliximab antibodies seems a sensitive and specific predictor for no/low infliximab-levels.

Adherence rates and associations with nonadherence in patients with rheumatoid arthritis using disease modifying antirheumatic drugs.

OBJECTIVE: Nonadherence in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) may result in unnecessarily high levels of disease activity and function loss. The aim of this descriptive study was to assess adherence rates with self-report measures in a large random population, and to identify potential risk factors for nonadherence. METHODS: A randomly selected sample of 228 patients with RA using DMARD was invited for a standardised interview. For each medicine, the patients were asked about adherence, consumption and perceived (side) effects. After the interview, the patients received self-report questionnaires to assess adherence [Compliance Questionnaire on Rheumatology (CQR) and the Medication Adherence Scale (MARS)], coping, beliefs about medicines, satisfaction about medicine information, and physical functioning. Subsequently, associations between adherence and demographics, clinical characteristics, and patient attitudes were examined. RESULTS: Depending on the instrument used, 68% (CQR) and 60% (MARS) of the patients were adherent to DMARD. Nonadherence was not associated with demographic and clinical characteristics, satisfaction about information, medication concerns, and coping styles. The disease duration, the number of perceived side-effects, and beliefs about the necessity of the medicine were weakly associated with adherence. CONCLUSION: In this large study with a random RA population, 32%-40% of the patients did not adhere to their DMARD prescription. As none of the possible risk factors was strongly related to adherence, no general risk factor seems to be powerful enough as a possible screening tool or target for adherence-improving interventions. This implies that nonadherence barriers should be assessed on an individual basis.

The impact of side effects on long-term retention in three new antiepileptic drugs.

OBJECTIVE: To determine long-term retention, percentage of patients withdrawing because of adverse events, percentage of patients achieving seizure freedom, safety profile of the new anti-epileptic drugs lamotrigine, levetiracetam and topiramate. METHODS: All patients treated with lamotrigine, levetiracetam or topiramate in the Epilepsy Centre were identified. Each drug was analyzed from introduction of the drug in the Netherlands up to a final assessment point 2 years later. RESULTS: Data from 1066 patients were included: 336 for lamotrigine, 301 for levetiracetam, 429 for topiramate. Two-year retention rates were 69.2% (lamotrigine), 45.8% (levetiracetam), 38.3% (topiramate); (LTG vs. LEV at p<0.001; LTG vs. TPM at p<0.001; LEV vs. TPM at p=0.005). Seizure freedom rates were lowest for lamotrigine and highest for levetiracetam. Adverse events played a role in drug discontinuation in 154/429 patients (35.9%) on topiramate, 52/336 patients (15.5%) on lamotrigine (p<0.001), 68/301 patients (22.5%) on levetiracetam (p<0.001). Mood and general CNS-effects are common in patients on lamotrigine and levetiracetam, and neurocognitive side effects are most prevalent in patients on topiramate. A positive effect on cognition is frequently noted in patients on lamotrigine. CONCLUSION: A drug that is only modestly efficacious but has a favourable safety profile may look better than a drug that is more efficacious but produces clinically meaningful adverse events. Therefore, a drug's retention rate is mainly determined by its side effect profile. As a consequence, retention rate was highest for lamotrigine and lowest for topiramate. Intermediate retention rates were seen with levetiracetam use.

Drug treatment-related factors of inadequate seizure control.

To optimize seizure control it is important to identify modifiable factors. We conducted a case-control study to explore to what extent drug treatment-related factors are associated with seizures. Eighty-six patients with epilepsy were evaluated: 45 cases (recently experienced a seizure) and 41 controls (seizure-free for at least 2 months). There was a significant association between low AED serum concentration and seizures (odds ratio (OR)=8.9, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.7-47.8), compliance was not associated with seizures (OR=0.9, 95% CI=0.2-4.0), and changes in medication (mainly non-AEDs) were more frequently observed in the case group than in the control group (OR=4.1, 95% CI=0.9-18.3). These findings indicate that patients with low AED serum levels have a nine times higher risk of seizures compared with patients with therapeutic AED levels and that changes in medication regimens in patients with epilepsy should be made with care.

Influence of chemical structure on hypersensitivity reactions induced by antiepileptic drugs: the role of the aromatic ring.

OBJECTIVE: Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) can cause various 'idiosyncratic' hypersensitivity reactions, i.e. the mechanism by which AEDs induce hypersensitivity is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess whether the presence of an aromatic ring as a commonality in chemical structures of AEDs can explain symptoms of hypersensitivity. METHODS: Between January 1985 and January 2007, all adverse drug reactions (ADRs) reported to the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb related to AEDs as suspected drugs were included in this study. ADRs were analysed using a case/non-case design. Cases were defined as those patients with ADRs involving symptoms of hypersensitivity. Non-cases were patients with all other ADR reports. Symptoms of hypersensitivity were classified according to the Gell and Coombs classification (type I-IV) and the organ involved (e.g. cutaneous, hepatic). AEDs were classified as aromatic anticonvulsant if their chemical structure contained at least one aromatic ring. All other AEDs were classified as non-aromatic. We assessed the strength of the association between aromatic AEDs versus non-aromatic AEDs and reported hypersensitivity reactions with logistic regression analysis and expressed these as reporting odds ratios (RORs). RESULTS: In total, 303 cases of hypersensitivity associated with the use of AEDs were reported. Aromatic AEDs were suspected in 64.4% of these reports versus 41.3% (574/1389) of the non-hypersensitivity reports. A significant ROR of 2.15 (95% CI 1.63, 2.82) was found for aromatic AEDs and all hypersensitivity reactions. Aromatic AEDs were significantly associated with immunoglobin E-mediated type I hypersensitivity reactions (ROR 2.15; 95% CI 1.23, 3.78) and T-cell-mediated type IV reactions (ROR 6.06; 95% CI 3.41, 10.75). Type II and III reactions did not show an association. Cutaneous symptoms represented 39.9% of the hypersensitivity-related ADRs. Aromatic AEDs were significantly associated with cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions (ROR 5.81; 95% CI 3.38, 9.99). CONCLUSION: This study confirms that the presence of an aromatic ring as a common feature in chemical structures of AEDs partly explains apparent 'idiosyncratic' hypersensitivity reactions. Symptoms of hypersensitivity were reported twice as frequently with aromatic AEDs than with non-aromatic AEDs. Strong associations for aromatic AEDs versus non-aromatic AEDs were found for T-cell-mediated (type IV) reactions, as well as for cutaneous reactions.

A cost-effectiveness decision model for antiepileptic drug treatment in newly diagnosed epilepsy patients.

OBJECTIVE: To establish cost-effectiveness of antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment strategies of newly diagnosed patients with epilepsy. METHODS: A decision analysis was carried out comparing effectiveness and treatment cost of six treatment strategies comprising carbamazepine (CBZ), lamotrigine (LTG), and valproate (VPA) as first-line and second-line drugs. Three outcome groups were defined: complete success, partial success, and failure. Data on seizure control and failure due to adverse effects were derived from the literature. Data on resource use and costs were collected for each outcome group by means of a patient survey. RESULTS: Cost data were obtained from 71 patients. Cost increased from complete success to failure outcome groups. The probability of obtaining complete success varied from 64% (VPA-CBZ strategy) to 74% (LTG-VPA strategy). The strategy LTG-VPA was more effective than the least expensive strategy CBZ-VPA, but at higher costs per additional effectively treated patient. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed these findings to be robust. Subsequent analysis showed that changing inclusion criteria used in the selection of the studies from the literature had a major effect on cost-effectiveness ratios of the various strategies. The probability that LTG first-line therapy is the most cost-effective option remains small, even defining a high cost-effectiveness threshold. Nevertheless, LTG second-line strategies can be cost-effective depending on the willingness to pay for patient improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Only a few studies satisfied our inclusion criteria for employment in our decision model. Our model supports the use of conventional AEDs as first-line options for patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy. LTG second-line therapy is likely to be the most cost-effective option in case society is willing to pay more than Euro 6000 for an additional successfully treated patient. This study also illustrates that, with the data presently available, the outcome of decision analysis for AED treatment choice depends on the inclusion criteria used to select trials. Prospective real-life studies are needed in which first- and second-line treatment strategies are compared with respect to both effectiveness and costs.

Non-compliance on the part of the professional community with a national guideline: an argumentative policy analysis.

In 1997, the National Health Insurance Board of the Netherlands (CVZ) introduced a guideline for the use of a new anti-epileptic drug, Lamotrigine. The goal was to limit the use of this relatively expensive drug to patients with difficult-to-treat epilepsy. A survey had shown that only a minority of neurologists were familiar with the guideline, and even fewer applied it in practice. In the present study, interviews were held with stakeholders to obtain a better understanding of why this policy measure failed. The results indicate that the problem definitions of policy maker and practicing neurologists differed widely, and that the policy measure was conflicting with certain professional beliefs. In such cases, the theory of argumentative policy predicts that policy is unlikely to succeed, unless policy makers take actions to ensure a greater congruence in interpretative frames between them and their target population.

Assessment of drug-drug interactions between tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and the nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors nevirapine and efavirenz in HIV-infected patients.

BACKGROUND: Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (DF) has been studied in combination with efavirenz in healthy volunteers and no interaction was found. No data are available on the possible interaction of tenofovir DF with nevirapine and efavirenz in HIV-infected patients. In this study the combination of nevirapine 200 mg twice daily with tenofovir DF 300 mg once daily and nevirapine 400 mg once daily with tenofovir DF 300 mg once daily were compared with nevirapine twice daily or once daily without tenofovir DF in HIV-infected patients. Furthermore, the combination of efavirenz 600 mg and tenofovir DF 300 mg once daily was compared with use of efavirenz 600 mg once daily only. METHODS: Data were retrospectively collected from routine therapeutic drug monitoring plasma samples. Nevirapine, efavirenz, and tenofovir plasma levels and tenofovir concentration ratios were analyzed. The concentration ratio represents the measured plasma concentration compared with the time-adjusted average concentration, as measured in a reference population. Six different groups were studied: 200 mg nevirapine twice daily, 400 mg nevirapine once daily, 600 mg efavirenz once daily, all without tenofovir DF (groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively), and the same groups with the drugs combined with tenofovir 300 mg once daily (groups 4, 5, and 6, respectively). RESULTS: Plasma samples were evaluable for 272, 18, 126, 32, 94, and 118 patients in the groups 1-6, respectively. No differences were found in plasma levels for tenofovir, nevirapine, and efavirenz for either of the combinations studied. Addition of tenofovir DF to efavirenz or nevirapine in HIV-infected patients does not influence the plasma levels of nevirapine or efavirenz. Furthermore, nevirapine and efavirenz have no effect on tenofovir plasma levels or tenofovir concentration ratios. CONCLUSION: Efavirenz or nevirapine can be coadministered with tenofovir DF in HIV-infected patients without dose modifications.

Effect of low-dose ritonavir (100 mg twice daily) on the activity of cytochrome P450 2D6 in healthy volunteers.

OBJECTIVE: In the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus infection, the protease inhibitor ritonavir is used in a low dose (100 mg twice daily) to inhibit cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 and thereby increase plasma concentrations of coadministered protease inhibitors. When applied in a therapeutic dose (600 mg twice daily), ritonavir also inhibits CYP2D6. The effect of low-dose ritonavir on CYP2D6 is unknown and was investigated in this study. METHODS: This was a 1-arm, 2-period, fixed-order study in 13 healthy male volunteers who were extensive metabolizers of CYP2D6. The first period examined baseline CYP2D6 activity by evaluating the pharmacokinetics of a single dose of desipramine and by metabolic phenotyping with dextromethorphan. During the second period, participants took ritonavir, 100 mg twice daily, for 2 weeks, followed by repeat assessment of desipramine pharmacokinetics and the dextromethorphan metabolic phenotype in the presence of ritonavir. RESULTS: Low-dose ritonavir (100 mg twice daily) significantly increased the exposure to single-dose desipramine, as reflected in a geometric mean ratio (with ritonavir/without ritonavir) of 1.26 (95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.40) for the desipramine area under the concentration versus time curve from time 0 to infinity (P < .001). Coadministration of low-dose ritonavir did not significantly affect the dextromethorphan/dextrorphan urinary metabolic ratio and did not convert any extensive metabolizer to a poor metabolizer. CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose ritonavir (100 mg twice daily) exerts a modest inhibitory effect on the activity of CYP2D6 in extensive metabolizers, as assessed with desipramine as the index substrate. This effect was not apparent with the dextromethorphan/dextrorphan metabolic ratio as an indicator for CYP2D6 activity. It is expected that the effect of low-dose ritonavir on CYP2D6 will not require standard dose reductions for CYP2D6 substrates.

TDM: therapeutic drug measuring or therapeutic drug monitoring?

The third round of the International Interlaboratory Quality Control Program for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring in HIV infection (QC-program) consisted of the analysis not only of plasma samples but also of patient cases. The case was composed of different topics related to the therapeutic drug monitoring of antiretroviral drugs. The participants were asked to give recommendations concerning dose adjustments, changes to the regimen, and drug-drug interactions to observe whether the expert recommendations were comparable. Of the 30 participants of the QC-program, 16 returned their comments and recommendations with regard to the patient case. The drug level was easy to judge: approximately 90% were able to correctly do so. Almost half of the recommendations (44%) given were satisfactory. Levels of knowledge regarding HIV treatment appeared to be variable among the respondents and for this reason were partly incomparable.

Drug-drug interactions as a determinant of elevated lithium serum levels in daily clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: Lithium is a drug with a narrow therapeutic window. Concomitantly used medication is a potentially influencing factor of lithium serum concentrations. We conducted a multicentre retrospective case-control study with the aim of investigating lithium-related drug interactions as determinants of elevated lithium serum levels in daily clinical practice. METHODS: Cases were patients with an increase of at least 50% in lithium serum concentrations resulting in an elevated lithium serum level of at least 1.3 mmol/L, and who were not suspected of a suicide attempt. Controls were patients who showed stable lithium serum levels within the therapeutic range. Use and start of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, diuretics, renin-angiotensin inhibitors, theophyllin and antibiotics were investigated as potential determinants of the elevated lithium serum levels. Irregularity in lithium dispensing pattern, change in lithium dosing regimen, age, gender, prescribing physician and laboratory parameters were investigated as potential confounders. RESULTS: We included 51 cases and 51 controls in our study. Five (9.8%) controls and 15 (29.4%) cases used potentially interacting co-medication [OR of 3.83 (95%CI 1.28-11.48)]. Start of potentially interacting co-medication was observed in eight (15.7%) cases and in zero (0%) controls resulting in an OR of 20.13 (95% CI 1.13-359). After adjustment for co-medication, irregularity in lithium dispensing pattern, change in lithium dosing regimen, and age, the statistically significant association was lost. We report an OR of 2.70 (95% CI 0.78-9.31) for use of concomitant medication, with a large contribution of antibiotic agents, and an OR of 3.14 (95% CI 1.15-8.61) for irregularity in lithium dispensing pattern. CONCLUSION: Use of co-medication, especially antibiotics, tends to be associated with elevated lithium serum levels.