首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Neurology: Clinical Practice >Author response: Clinical utility of therapeutic drug monitoring of antiepileptic drugs
【2h】

Author response: Clinical utility of therapeutic drug monitoring of antiepileptic drugs

机译:作者响应:抗癫痫药物治疗药物监测的临床效用

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

I appreciated Dr. Sethi's commentary on our recently published article as he raises a number of interesting points.1 Certainly, intraindividual variability is another complicating aspect of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) in epilepsy care and, while outside the scope of our review, should be taken into account by all clinicians who choose to incorporate serum antiepileptic drug levels into their clinical decision-making. For my personal practice, I tend to agree that the clinical utility of serum antiepileptic drug levels is limited and that dosing adjustments are best made based on clinical response (seizure control and reported adverse effects). Although our systematic review did identify some studies showing evidence for TDM, the higher quality studies did not show convincing evidence supporting a clinical benefit. In general, we clinicians now have a wealth of diagnostic options available to us, and it is easy to forget that the patient's reported symptoms and clinical examination are almost always the most important outcome measures.
机译:我感谢Sethi博士对我们最近发表的文章的评论,因为他提出了许多有趣的观点.1当然,Intrainedual的变异性是癫痫护理治疗药物监测(TDM)的另一个复杂性方面,而在我们的评论范围之外,应该通过选择将血清抗癫痫药物水平纳入其临床决策的所有临床医生考虑。对于我的个人惯例,我倾向于同意血清抗癫痫药物水平的临床效用是有限的,并且给药调整是基于临床反应(癫痫管制和报告的不良反应)的最佳制备。虽然我们的系统审查确实确定了一些关于TDM证据的研究,但更高质量的研究没有表现出令人信服的证据支持临床效益。一般而言,我们临床医生现在有丰富的诊断选择,很容易忘记患者报告的症状和临床检查几乎总是最重要的结果措施。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号