Eco-Friendly, Simple, Fast, and Sensitive UPLC-MS/MS Method for Determination of Pexidartinib in Plasma and Its Application to Metabolic Stability.

Pexidartinib is the first drug approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration specifically to treat the rare joint tumor tenosynovial giant cell tumor. In the current study, a validated, selective, and sensitive UPLC-MS/MS assay was developed for the quantitative determination of pexidartinib in plasma samples using gifitinib as an internal standard (IS). Pexidartinib and IS were extracted by liquid-liquid extraction using methyl tert-butyl ether and separated on an acquity BEH C18 column kept at 40 °C using a mobile phase of 0.1% formic acid in acetonitrile: 0.1% formic acid in de-ionized water (70:30). The flow rate was 0.25 mL/min. Multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) was operated in electrospray (ESI)-positive mode at the ion transition of 418.06 > 165.0 for the analyte and 447.09 > 128.0 for the IS. FDA guidance for bioanalytical method validation was followed in method validation. The linearity of the established UPLC-MS/MS assay ranged from 0.5 to 1000 ng/mL with r > 0.999 with a limit of quantitation of 0.5 ng/mL. Moreover, the metabolic stability of pexidartinib in liver microsomes was estimated.

Replicates Number for Drug Stability Testing during Bioanalytical Method Validation-An Experimental and Retrospective Approach.

BACKGROUND: The stability of a drug or metabolites in biological matrices is an essential part of bioanalytical method validation, but the justification of its sample size (replicates number) is insufficient. The international guidelines differ in recommended sample size to study stability from no recommendation to at least three quality control samples. Testing of three samples may lead to results biased by a single outlier. We aimed to evaluate the optimal sample size for stability testing based on 90% confidence intervals. METHODS: We conducted the experimental, retrospective (264 confidence intervals for the stability of nine drugs during regulatory bioanalytical method validation), and theoretical (mathematical) studies. We generated experimental stability data (40 confidence intervals) for two analytes-tramadol and its major metabolite (O-desmethyl-tramadol)-in two concentrations, two storage conditions, and in five sample sizes (n = 3, 4, 5, 6, or 8). RESULTS: The 90% confidence intervals were wider for low than for high concentrations in 18 out of 20 cases. For n = 5 each stability test passed, and the width of the confidence intervals was below 20%. The results of the retrospective study and the theoretical analysis supported the experimental observations that five or six repetitions ensure that confidence intervals fall within 85-115% acceptance criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Five repetitions are optimal for the assessment of analyte stability. We hope to initiate discussion and stimulate further research on the sample size for stability testing.

Standardization of evaluation method and prognostic significance of histological response to preoperative chemotherapy in high-grade non-round cell soft tissue sarcomas.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative chemotherapy is widely applied to high-grade localized soft tissue sarcomas (STSs); however, the prognostic significance of histological response to chemotherapy remains controversial. This study aimed to standardize evaluation method of histological response to chemotherapy with high agreement score among pathologists, and to establish a cut-off value closely related to prognosis. METHODS: Using data and specimens from the patients who had registered in the Japan Clinical Oncology Group study, JCOG0304, a phase II trial evaluating the efficacy of perioperative chemotherapy with doxorubicin (DOX) and ifosfamide (IFO), we evaluated histological response to preoperative chemotherapy at the central review board. RESULTS: A total of 64 patients were eligible for this study. The percentage of viable tumor area ranged from 0.1% to 97.0%, with median value of 35.7%. Regarding concordance proportion between pathologists, the weighted kappa coefficient (κ) score in all patients was 0.71, indicating that the established evaluation method achieved substantial agreement score. When the cut-off value of the percentage of the residual tumor area was set as 25%, the p-value for the difference in overall survival showed the minimum value. Hazard ratio of the non-responder with percentage of the residual tumor < 25%, to the responder was 4.029 (95% confidence interval 0.893-18.188, p = 0.070). CONCLUSION: The standardized evaluation method of pathological response to preoperative chemotherapy showed a substantial agreement in the weighted κ score. The evaluation method established here was useful for estimating of the prognosis in STS patients who were administered perioperative chemotherapy with DOX and IFO. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN Clinical Trials Registry C000000096. Registered 30 August, 2005 (retrospectively registered).

Remission and Treatment Augmentation of Depression in the United States.

Objective: To determine the proportion of adults treated for depression in the US who achieve remission and, among those not achieving remission, the proportion receiving augmentation treatment.Methods: Using data from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for years 2013-2014, 2015-2016, and 2017-2018, we identified 869 adults who reported using antidepressant medications for depression for at least 3 months. This sample was partitioned into remitted (score < 5) and non-remitted (score ≥ 5) respondents based on 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) score-a questionnaire based on the DSM-IV criteria for major depressive disorder. Among the non-remitted group, the proportion receiving antidepressant augmentation with another antidepressant medication of a different class or other medications was also assessed.Results: An estimated 43.5% of adults receiving antidepressant medications for depression were in remission when assessed. Among those not in remission, 28.1% were using augmentation treatment, which in most cases was another antidepressant medication from a different class. As compared to depressed adults without any mental health contact in the past year, those with such contact had significantly higher odds of using augmentation treatment (adjusted odds ratio = 2.72; 95% CI, 1.56-4.76; P = .001).Conclusions: The low percentage of US adults treated with antidepressants for depression that achieves remission represents a missed clinical and public health opportunity to optimize depression treatment. Closer monitoring of symptoms through measurement-based care and setting symptom remission as a goal can help improve outcomes for adults with depression.

Therapeutic drug monitoring in oncology: International Association of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Clinical Toxicology consensus guidelines for imatinib therapy.

Although therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is an important tool in guiding drug dosing for other areas of medicine including infectious diseases, cardiology, psychiatry and transplant medicine, it has not gained wide acceptance in oncology. For imatinib and other tyrosine kinase inhibitors, a flat dosing approach is utilised for management of oral chemotherapy. There are many published studies examining the correlation of blood concentrations with clinical effects of imatinib. The International Association of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Clinical Toxicology (IATDMCT) determined that there was a need to examine the published literature regarding utility of TDM in imatinib therapy and to develop consensus guidelines for TDM based on the available data. This article summarises the scientific evidence regarding TDM of imatinib, as well as the consensus guidelines developed by the IATDMCT.

Patient-reported outcomes for monitoring symptomatic toxicities in cancer patients treated with immune-checkpoint inhibitors: A Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Immune-related adverse events (IrAEs) associated with the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) may not be fully covered by existing measures like the PRO-CTCAE™. Selecting PRO-CTCAE™ items for monitoring symptomatic adverse events is hindered by the heterogeneity and complexity of IrAEs, and no standardised selection process exists. We aimed to reach expert consensus on the PRO-CTCAE™ symptom terms relevant for cancer patients receiving ICIs and to gather preliminary expert opinions about additional symptom terms reflecting ICI symptomatic toxicities. Additionally, we gathered expert consensus about a core set of priority symptom terms for prospective surveillance and monitoring. DESIGN: This Delphi study involved an international panel of experts (n = 6 physicians; n = 3 nurses, n = 1 psychiatrist and n = 1 patient advocates). Experts prioritised the relevance and importance of symptom terms to monitor in patients treated with ICIs. RESULTS: Experts reached a consensus on the relevance of all (n = 80) PRO-CTCAE™ Symptom Terms. Consensus on the importance of these symptom terms for prospective monitoring in patients receiving ICIs was reached for 81% (n = 65) of these terms. Additional symptoms terms (n = 56) were identified, with a consensus that 84% (47/56) of these additional symptom terms should also be considered when monitoring symptomatic IrAEs. CONCLUSION: This study identified a prioritised list of symptom terms for prospective surveillance for symptomatic IrAEs in patients receiving ICI treatment. Our results indicate the need to strengthen the validity of PRO measures used to monitor patients receiving ICIs. While these results provided some support for the content validity of the PRO CTCAE™ and resulted in a preliminary set of salient symptomatic adverse events related to the use of ICIs, broader international agreement and patient involvement are needed to further validate our initial findings.

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) guidelines for management of dyslipidemia and cardiovascular disease risk reduction: Putting evidence in context.

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States (U.S.) and incurs significant cost to the healthcare system. Management of cholesterol remains central for ASCVD prevention and has been the focus of multiple national guidelines. In this review, we compare the American Heart Association (AHA)/American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Cholesterol guidelines. We review the evidence base that was used to generate recommendations focusing on 4 distinct themes: 1) the threshold of absolute 10-year ASCVD risk to start a clinician-patient discussion for the initiation of statin therapy in primary prevention patients; 2) the utility of coronary artery calcium score to guide clinician-patient risk discussion pertaining to the initiation of statin therapy for primary ASCVD prevention; 3) the use of moderate versus high-intensity statin therapy in patients with established ASCVD; and 4) the utility of ordering lipid panels after initiation or intensification of lipid lowering therapy to document efficacy and monitor adherence to lipid lowering therapy. We discuss why the VA/DoD and AHA/ACC may have reached different conclusions on these key issues.

Predictive Performance of Bayesian Vancomycin Monitoring in the Critically Ill.

OBJECTIVES: It is recommended that therapeutic monitoring of vancomycin should be guided by 24-hour area under the curve concentration. This can be done via Bayesian models in dose-optimization software. However, before these models can be incorporated into clinical practice in the critically ill, their predictive performance needs to be evaluated. This study assesses the predictive performance of Bayesian models for vancomycin in the critically ill. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Single-center ICU. PATIENTS: Data were obtained for all patients in the ICU between 1 January, and 31 May 2020, who received IV vancomycin. The predictive performance of three Bayesian models were evaluated based on their availability in commercially available software. Predictive performance was assessed via bias and precision. Bias was measured as the mean difference between observed and predicted vancomycin concentrations. Precision was measured as the sd of bias, root mean square error, and 95% limits of agreement based on Bland-Altman plots. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 466 concentrations from 188 patients were used to evaluate the three models. All models showed low bias (-1.7 to 1.8 mg/L), which was lower with a posteriori estimate (-0.7 to 1.8 mg/L). However, all three models showed low precision in terms of sd (4.7-8.8 mg/L) and root mean square error (4.8-8.9 mg/L). The models underpredicted at higher observed vancomycin concentrations (bias 0.7-3.2 mg/L for < 20 mg/L; -5.1 to -2.3 for ≥ 20 mg/L) and the Bland-Altman plots showed a great deviation between observed and predicted concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: Bayesian models of vancomycin show not only low bias, but also low precision in the critically ill. Thus, Bayesian-guided dosing of vancomycin in this population should be used cautiously.

Factors associated with reduced infliximab exposure in the treatment of pediatric autoimmune disorders: a cross-sectional prospective convenience sampling study.

BACKGROUND: Inadequate systemic exposure to infliximab (IFX) is associated with treatment failure. This work evaluated factors associated with reduced IFX exposure in children with autoimmune disorders requiring IFX therapy. METHODS: In this single-center cross-sectional prospective study IFX trough concentrations and anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) were measured in serum from children diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) (n = 73), juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) (n = 16), or uveitis (n = 8) receiving maintenance IFX infusions at an outpatient infusion clinic in a tertiary academic pediatric hospital. IFX concentrations in combination with population pharmacokinetic modeling were used to estimate IFX clearance. Patient demographic and clinical data were collected by chart review and evaluated for their relationship with IFX clearance. RESULTS: IFX trough concentrations ranged from 0 to > 40 µg/mL and were 3-fold lower in children with IBD compared to children with JIA (p = 0.0002) or uveitis (p = 0.001). Children with IBD were found to receive lower IFX doses with longer dosing intervals, resulting in dose intensities (mg/kg/day) that were 2-fold lower compared to children with JIA (p = 0.0002) or uveitis (p = 0.02). Use of population pharmacokinetic analysis to normalize for variation in dosing practices demonstrated that increased IFX clearance was associated with ADA positivity (p = 0.004), male gender (p = 0.02), elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) (p = 0.02), elevated c-reactive protein (CRP) (p = 0.001), reduced serum albumin concentrations (p = 0.0005), and increased disease activity in JIA (p = 0.009) and IBD (p ≤ 0.08). No significant relationship between diagnosis and underlying differences in IFX clearance was observed. Multivariable analysis by covariate population pharmacokinetic modeling confirmed increased IFX clearance to be associated with anti-IFX antibody positivity, increased ESR, and reduced serum albumin concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: Enhanced IFX clearance is associated with immunogenicity and inflammatory burden across autoimmune disorders. Higher systemic IFX exposures observed in children with rheumatologic disorders are driven primarily by provider drug dose and interval selection, rather than differences in IFX pharmacokinetics across diagnoses. Despite maintenance IFX dosing at or above the standard recommended range for IBD (i.e., 5 mg/kg every 8 weeks), the dosing intensity used in the treatment of IBD is notably lower than dosing intensities used to treat JIA and uveitis, and may place some children with IBD at risk for suboptimal maintenance IFX exposures necessary for treatment response.

The First WHO International Standard for Adalimumab: Dual Role in Bioactivity and Therapeutic Drug Monitoring.

The expanded availability of adalimumab products continues to widen patient access and reduce costs with substantial benefit to healthcare systems. However, the long-term success of these medicines is highly dependent on maintaining consistency in quality, safety and efficacy while minimizing any risk of divergence during life-cycle management. In recognition of this need and demand from global manufacturers, the World Health Organization (WHO) Expert Committee on Biological standardization established the WHO 1st International standard (IS) for Adalimumab (coded 17/236) in October 2019 with a defined unitage ascribed to each of the individual bioactivities evaluated in the study namely, TNF-α binding, TNF-α neutralization, complement dependent cytotoxicity and antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity. For development of the IS, two candidate standards were manufactured as per WHO recommendations. Analysis of extensive datasets generated by testing of a common set of samples including the candidate standards by multiple stakeholders including regulatory agencies using their own qualified assays in a large international collaborative study showed comparable biological activity for the tested candidates for the different activities. Use of a common standard significantly decreased the variability of bioassays and improved agreement in potency estimates. Data from this study clearly supports the utility of the IS as an important tool for assuring analytical assay performance, for bioassay calibration and validation, for identifying and controlling changes in bioactivity during life-cycle management and for global harmonization of adalimumab products. In addition, in a separate multi-center study which included involvement of hospital and clinical diagnostic laboratories, the suitability of the adalimumab IS for therapeutic drug monitoring assays was examined by analysis of data from testing of a common blind coded panel of adalimumab spiked serum samples representative of the clinical scenario along with the IS and in-house standards in diverse immunoassays/platforms. Both commercially available and in-house assays that are routinely used for assessing adalimumab trough levels were included. Excellent agreement in estimates for adalimumab content in the spiked samples was observed regardless of the standard or the method with inter-laboratory variability also similar regardless of the standard employed. This data, for the first time, provides support for the extended applicability of the IS in assays in use for therapeutic drug monitoring based on the mass content of the IS. The adalimumab IS, in fulfilling clinical demand, can help toward standardizing and harmonizing clinical monitoring assays for informed clinical decisions and/or personalized treatment strategies for better patient outcomes. Collectively, a significant role for the adalimumab IS in assuring the quality, safety and efficacy of adalimumab products globally is envisaged.

Review of the Preanalytical Errors That Impact Therapeutic Drug Monitoring.

PURPOSE: Preanalytical errors comprise the majority of testing errors experienced by clinical laboratories and significantly impact the accuracy of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). METHODS: Specific preanalytical factors in sample timing, collection, transport, processing, and storage that lead to errors in TDM were reviewed. We performed a literature search using several scientific databases including PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, and ResearchGate for human studies published in the English language from January 1980 to February 2021, reporting on TDM and the preanalytical phase. RESULTS: Blood collection errors (ie, wrong anticoagulant/clot activator used, via an intravenous line, incorrect time after dosing) delay testing, cause inaccurate results, and adversely impact patient care. Blood collected in lithium heparin tubes instead of heparin sodium tubes produce supertoxic lithium concentrations, which can compromise care. Specimens collected in serum separator gel tubes cause falsely decreased concentrations due to passive absorption into the gel when samples are not processed and analyzed quickly. Dried blood spots are popular for TDM as they are minimally invasive, allowing for self-sampling and direct shipping to a clinical laboratory using regular mail. However, blood collection techniques, such as trauma to the collection site, filter paper fragility, and hematocrit (Hct) bias, can adversely affect the accuracy of the results. Volumetric absorptive microsampling is a potential alternative to dried blood spot that offers fast, volume-fixed sampling, low pain tolerance, and is not susceptible to Hct concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: The identification of preanalytical factors that may negatively impact TDM is critical. Developing workflows that can standardize TDM practices, align appropriate timing and blood collection techniques, and specimen processing will eliminate errors.

Methotrexate Monitoring in Dermatology- A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There are currently no evidence-based recommendations to guide lab monitoring in the first 90 days of methotrexate treatment. The purpose of this study was to determine whether certain monitoring practices or baseline patient characteristics were associated with increased risk of developing clinically meaningful lab abnormalities during the course of methotrexate treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analyzed 243 dermatologically managed patients taking methotrexate at the University of Virginia Health System. Odds ratios were used to analyze the risk of these patients developing lab abnormalities that result in a change in clinical management, referred to as clinically relevant events. Chi-square analysis was used to determine the optimal timing of methotrexate lab monitoring. RESULTS: A diagnosis of congestive heart failure (P=0.03), chronic kidney disease (P=0.03), and an initial low platelet count (P=0.008) increased the odds of developing a clinically relevant event at some point during methotrexate therapy. In the first 15 days following methotrexate initiation, only 1/114 (0.9%) lab draws resulted in discontinuation of the medicine, 1/114 (0.9%) resulted in maintenance of a stable dose, and 2/114 (1.8%) resulted in repeat laboratory testing. CONCLUSION: In the absence of concerning baseline patient characteristics, dermatologists may consider postponing initial lab monitoring until 15 days post methotrexate initiation.J Drugs Dermatol. 2021;20(3):320-325. doi:10.36849/JDD.5790.

Drugs in COVID-19 Clinical Trials: Predicting Transporter-Mediated Drug-Drug Interactions Using In Vitro Assays and Real-World Data.

Numerous drugs are currently under accelerated clinical investigation for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, well-established safety and efficacy data for these drugs are limited. The goal of this study was to predict the potential of 25 small molecule drugs in clinical trials for COVID-19 to cause clinically relevant drug-drug interactions (DDIs), which could lead to potential adverse drug reactions (ADRs) with the use of concomitant medications. We focused on 11 transporters, which are targets for DDIs. In vitro potency studies in membrane vesicles or HEK293 cells expressing the transporters coupled with DDI risk assessment methods revealed that 20 of the 25 drugs met the criteria from regulatory authorities to trigger consideration of a DDI clinical trial. Analyses of real-world data from electronic health records, including a database representing nearly 120,000 patients with COVID-19, were consistent with several of the drugs causing transporter-mediated DDIs (e.g., sildenafil, chloroquine, and hydroxychloroquine). This study suggests that patients with COVID-19, who are often older and on various concomitant medications, should be carefully monitored for ADRs. Future clinical studies are needed to determine whether the drugs that are predicted to inhibit transporters at clinically relevant concentrations, actually result in DDIs.

Clozapine treatment: Ensuring ongoing monitoring during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The current coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) has led mental health systems to uncertainty regarding safe continuation of clozapine monitoring protocols. Clozapine is without doubt the only antipsychotic available with repeatedly proven efficacy in treatment resistant schizophrenia.1 Replacing clozapine with an alternative antipsychotic in patients stabilized with clozapine can potentially lead to higher risk of relapse or exacerbation of severity of illness.1 Clozapine, as already known, has a number of side effects, some of which can be serious, thus patients receiving clozapine require ongoing scheduled monitoring. Side effects of clozapine include neutropenia or agranulocytosis, myocarditis, fever, hypersalivation, weight gain and constipation. These side effects can be detected and treated when recognized on time decreasing the possibility of serious consequences making the implementation of an ongoing treatment monitoring protocol for patients on clozapine mandatory.2 Since it was advised for all mental health providers in most countries worldwide to limit non-urgent hospital visits and procedures to reduce the risk of contamination a challenge arose for patients' ability to access health care facilities for their routine clozapine monitoring. Nevertheless, the majority of Mental Health Care Authorities decided to ensure access for all patients on clozapine to their routine monitoring protocol.3,4 To date, no data exist on any potential relationship between antipsychotic use and the risk of contamination with SARS-CoV-2 or the development of severe symptoms of the infection. The literature suggests that patients receiving antipsychotics, especially clozapine, have an increased risk of developing pneumonia, leading to the assumption that patients receiving clozapine are at higher risk to develop COVID-19. 1 Balancing the importance of monitoring continuation against the increased risk for COVID-19, an International Consensus Statement was recently published addressing a monitoring protocol with reduced visits. The Consensus suggested reduced hematologic monitoring frequency of every 3 months with a prescription of 90 days clozapine supply (if safe). The above applies to patients receiving clozapine for at least one year without neutropenia. Τhe risk of neutropenia after 12 months of clozapine treatment falls significantly.4 Based on the above it is suggested to all clozapine clinics to implement a guidance monitoring protocol for all patients on clozapine to ensure safety during the pandemic. Besides hematological monitoring that requires physical contact with healthcare workers it is significant to implement a telemedicine appointment in frequent intervals to monitor symptoms of infection, symptoms of cardiovascular diseases and constipation. Patient should also be advised to regularly monitor one's blood pressure and pulses and ideally be educated on how by a member of the staff. If a patient is detected with any symptoms related to the above an emergency appointment for evaluation should be planned. Overall, since both the consequences and the duration of the pandemic are unknown, mental health services must work jointly to implement a clozapine monitoring plan to ensure safe continuation in such a vulnerable population.

2021 Update of the International Council for Standardization in Haematology Recommendations for Laboratory Measurement of Direct Oral Anticoagulants.

In 2018, the International Council for Standardization in Haematology (ICSH) published a consensus document providing guidance for laboratories on measuring direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Since that publication, several significant changes related to DOACs have occurred, including the approval of a new DOAC by the Food and Drug Administration, betrixaban, and a specific DOAC reversal agent intended for use when the reversal of anticoagulation with apixaban or rivaroxaban is needed due to life-threatening or uncontrolled bleeding, andexanet alfa. In addition, this ICSH Working Party recognized areas where additional information was warranted, including patient population considerations and updates in point-of-care testing. The information in this manuscript supplements our previous ICSH DOAC laboratory guidance document. The recommendations provided are based on (1) information from peer-reviewed publications about laboratory measurement of DOACs, (2) contributing author's personal experience/expert opinion and (3) good laboratory practice.

No adverse events were observed in clozapine-treated patients on extended hematologic monitoring intervals during the coronavirus pandemic in four psychiatric centers in Japan.

AIM: As an emergency measure during the coronavirus disease pandemic, the monitoring interval for clozapine use was temporarily extended beyond the regulatory requirement in Japan, which is the safest monitoring interval worldwide. In this study, we aimed to explore the effect of this measure on patients undergoing clozapine treatment. METHODS: This retrospective chart review study included patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) who were undergoing clozapine treatment at four psychiatric institutions in Japan. Demographic characteristics and clinical information of these patients were collected on April 27, 2020, when Japanese psychiatrists were virtually allowed to prescribe clozapine beyond the regulatory requirement. Furthermore, information of adverse events related to the emergency measure was collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 41 patients with TRS included in this study, 19 patients underwent extended hematological monitoring during clozapine treatment. No psychiatric or hematological adverse events were observed in the patients during the extended monitoring interval. CONCLUSION: This study suggested that there were few adverse events of clozapine-treated patients related to emergency measures in Japan. However, hematological monitoring intervals during clozapine treatment have been emergently extended worldwide; hence, it is necessary to verify the results of these measures.

Too Much of a Good Thing: Defining Antimicrobial Therapeutic Targets to Minimize Toxicity.

Antimicrobials are a common cause of drug toxicity. Understanding the relationship between systemic antimicrobial exposure and toxicity is necessary to enable providers to take a proactive approach to prevent undesired drug effects. When an exposure threshold has been defined that predicts drug toxicity, therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) can be performed to assure drug exposure does not exceed the defined threshold. Although some antimicrobials have well-defined dose-dependent toxicities, many other exposure-toxicity relationships have either not been well-defined or, in some cases, not been evaluated at all. In this review, we examine the relationship between exposures and toxicities for antibiotic, antifungal, and antiviral agents. Furthermore, we classify these relationships into four categories: known association between drug exposure and toxicity such that clinical implementation of a specific exposure threshold associated with toxicity for TDM is supported (category 1), known association between drug exposure and toxicity but the specific exposure threshold associated with toxicity is undefined (category 2), association between drug exposure and toxicity has been suggested but relationship is poorly defined (category 3), and no known association between drug exposure and toxicity (category 4). Further work to define exposure-toxicity thresholds and integrate effective TDM strategies has the potential to minimize many of the observed antimicrobial toxicities.