Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18344046›Full record

ReviewEuropean archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience2008

Therapeutic drug monitoring in neuropsychopharmacology: does it hold its promises?

Christoph Hiemke

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Lack of relationship between plasma levels of escitalopram and QTc-interval length.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2017
    Article
  8. Role of Hybrid Brain Imaging in Neuropsychiatric Disorders.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2015
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Biomarkers in development of psychotropic drugs.Dialogues in clinical neuroscience · 2011
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Neuroimaging in psychiatry: from bench to bedside.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2009
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Christoph HiemkeDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Mainz, Untere Zahlbacher Str 8, Mainz, Germany. hiemke@mail.uni-mainz.de

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To produce its characteristic effects, a drug must be present in appropriate concentrations at its sites of action. The latter is not only a function of the dose administered, but also of the extent and rate of drug absorption, distribution, tissue binding, biotransformation, and excretion, which can vary markedly between individual patients due to differences in gender, age, morbidity, smoking or eating habits, differential expression of drug metabolising enzymes or drug transporters or other factors. Therefore drug concentrations in blood resulting after a given dose differ by tenfold or more between individual patients. For psychoactive drugs, animal studies have shown that plasma concentrations of psychotropic drugs correlate well with concentrations in the target organ, the brain. In the brain of patients treated with antipsychotic or antidepressant drugs clear-cut relationships were found between plasma concentrations of the drug and occupancy of dopamine receptors or serotonin uptake sites by positron emission tomography (PET). Monitoring concentrations of psychoactive drugs in plasma of patients, so called therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), is therefore useful to adjust dosages for optimal "receptor" blockade. TDM is well established for mood stabilizers and anticonvulsant drugs. For other neuropsychiatric drugs, however, "routine" TDM is rare. Optimal target concentrations are unclear for many drugs, and the number of laboratories that use reliable methods to measure the low concentrations of the drugs within a single day is quite limited. Moreover, the use of TDM in practice is far from optimal. The TDM group of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Neuropsychopharmakologie und Pharmakopsychiatrie (AGNP see http://www.agnp.de/) has published literature-based guidelines for optimal use of TDM in psychiatry. TDM can be most informative to solve problems underlying the treatment of an individual patient. It can be clarified if suggested non-compliance or insufficient response in spite of recommended doses is due to rapid metabolism of the drug. Moreover, many drug interactions have been detected by using TDM. In conclusion, TDM is a reliable tool to optimise psychopharmacotherapy. When used adequately it is helpful for many psychiatric patients and in many situations.

Indexed as

Drug MonitoringDose-Response Relationship, DrugGuidelines as TopicHumansMental DisordersNeuropsychologyPsychopharmacologyPsychotropic DrugsPsychotropic Drugs

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.