This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (64)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Ronald A. Schoenenberger, MD, MPH; Milenko J. Tanasijevic, MD; Ashish Jha; David W. Bates, MD, MSc

JAMA. 1995;274(20):1622-1626.

Abstract
Objectives.
—To develop explicit, reliable appropriateness criteria for antiepileptic drug level monitoring and to assess the appropriateness of monitoring in one tertiary care institution.

Design.
—Appropriateness criteria derived from the literature and through expert opinion were used to evaluate a stratified random sample of antiepileptic drug level determinations obtained from chart review.

Setting.
—Tertiary care center performing more than 10 000 antiepileptic drug level determinations per year.

Patients.
—A total of 330 inpatients in whom antiepileptic drug levels were measured a total of 855 times.

Methods.
—Drug levels were assessed at least 200 times for each of four antiepileptic drugs (phenytoin, carbamazepine, phenobarbital, and valproic acid).

Main Outcome Measures.
—The proportion of antiepileptic drug levels with an appropriate indication and, of those, the proportion sampled appropriately.

Results.
—Overall, 27% (95% confidence interval, 24% to 30%) of levels had an appropriate indication. Interrater agreement for appropriateness was substantial (=0.61). There was no significant difference in the appropriateness rate among the four drugs (range, 25% to 29%). Of the 624 antiepileptic drug level determinations considered inappropriate (73%), only four (0.6%) were more than 20% higher than the upper limit of normal, and none of the four patients had clinical signs of drug toxicity. A median of six levels (range, one through 69) was determined per patient, and the median interval between level determinations was 24 hours. Of the 27% of level determinations with an appropriate indication, 51% were sampled correctly, resulting in an overall appropriateness rate of 14%.

Conclusions.
—Only 27% of antiepileptic drug level determinations had an appropriate indication, and half of these were not sampled correctly. Routine daily monitoring without pharmacological justification accounted for most of the inappropriate drug level determinations. Efforts to decrease inappropriate monitoring may result in substantial cost reductions without missing important clinical results.

(JAMA. 1995;274:1622-1626)

Author Affiliations
From the Division of Clinical Epidemiology (Dr Schoenenberger), the Department of Pathology (Dr Tanasijevic), and the Division of General Medicine and Primary Care (Dr Bates and Mr Jha), Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass.

Footnotes
Reprint requests to Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115 (Dr Bates).

Toward Optimal Laboratory Use section editor: George D. Lundberg, MD, Editor, JAMA.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

A Randomized Trial of Electronic Clinical Reminders to Improve Medication Laboratory Monitoring
Matheny et al.
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2008;15:424-429.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Salivary Monitoring of Antiepileptic Drugs
Baumann
Journal of Pharmacy Practice 2007;20:147-157.
ABSTRACT  

Pitfalls of testing and summary of guidance on safety monitoring with amiodarone and digoxin
Smellie and Coleman
BMJ 2007;334:312-315.
FULL TEXT  

Medication-related Clinical Decision Support in Computerized Provider Order Entry Systems: A Review
Kuperman et al.
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2007;14:29-40.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Improving Laboratory Monitoring at Initiation of Drug Therapy in Ambulatory Care: A Randomized Trial
Raebel et al.
Arch Intern Med 2005;165:2395-2401.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Use of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring for Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis Patients
Li et al.
Chest 2004;126:1770-1776.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Inappropriate requests for serum anti-epileptic drug levels in hospital practice
Walters et al.
QJM 2004;97:337-341.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Ten Commandments for Effective Clinical Decision Support: Making the Practice of Evidence-based Medicine a Reality
Bates et al.
J Am Med Inform Assoc 2003;10:523-530.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Ten Commandments for Effective Clinical Decision Support: Making the Practice of Evidence-based Medicine a Reality
Bates et al.
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2003;10:523-530.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Computer Physician Order Entry: Benefits, Costs, and Issues
Kuperman and Gibson
ANN INTERN MED 2003;139:31-39.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Linking Laboratory and Pharmacy: Opportunities for Reducing Errors and Improving Care
Schiff et al.
Arch Intern Med 2003;163:893-900.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Childhood Epilepsy: What Is the Evidence for What We Think and What We Do?
Camfield and Camfield
J Child Neurol 2003;18:272-287.
ABSTRACT  

Anticonvulsant Blood Levels: Historical Review With a Pediatric Focus
Snodgrass and Parks
J Child Neurol 2000;15:734-746.
ABSTRACT  

Prescribing and monitoring of carbamazepine and valproate -- a case note review
Taylor et al.
Psychiatr. Bull. 2000;24:174-177.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Evaluating the Appropriateness of Digoxin Level Monitoring
Canas et al.
Arch Intern Med 1999;159:363-368.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Do We Know What Inappropriate Laboratory Utilization Is?: A Systematic Review of Laboratory Clinical Audits
van Walraven and Naylor
JAMA 1998;280:550-558.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Standards of laboratory practice: antiepileptic drug monitoring
Warner et al.
Clin. Chem. 1998;44:1085-1095.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Computerized Prescribing: Building the Electronic Infrastructure for Better Medication Usage
Schiff and Rucker
JAMA 1998;279:1024-1029.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Strategies for physician education in therapeutic drug monitoring
Bates et al.
Clin. Chem. 1998;44:401-407.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Does the Computerized Display of Charges Affect Inpatient Ancillary Test Utilization?
Bates et al.
Arch Intern Med 1997;157:2501-2508.
ABSTRACT  

Appropriateness of Antiepileptic Drug Level Monitoring
Gambino
JAMA 1996;275:757-757.
ABSTRACT  

Appropriateness of Antiepileptic Drug Level Monitoring
Dorizzi et al.
JAMA 1996;275:757-758.
ABSTRACT  

WHEN AND HOW TO MONITOR ANTIEPILEPTIC DRUG LEVELS
JWatch General 1995;1995:7-7.
FULL TEXT