Laboratory monitoring of drugs at initiation of therapy in ambulatory care
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Product labeling and published guidelines reflect the importance of monitoring laboratory parameters for drugs with a risk of organ system toxicity or electrolyte imbalance. Limited information exists about adherence to laboratory monitoring recommendations. The objective of this study was to describe laboratory monitoring among ambulatory patients dispensed medications for which laboratory testing is recommended at therapy initiation.
DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of patients in 10 geographically distributed health maintenance organizations who were newly prescribed medications with recommended laboratory test monitoring. The main outcome measure was the proportion of initial drug dispensing without recommended baseline laboratory monitoring for 35 newly initiated drugs or drug classes.
RESULTS: One hundred seven thousand, seven hundred sixty-three of 279,354 (39%) initial drug dispensings occurred without recommended laboratory monitoring. Patients without monitoring were younger than patients who had monitoring (median 57 vs 61 years, P<.001). Thirty-two percent of dispensings where a serum creatinine was indicated did not have it evaluated (range across drugs, 12% to 61%); 39% did not have liver function testing (range 10% to 75%); 32% did not have hematologic monitoring (range 9% to 51%); and 34% did not have electrolyte monitoring (range 20% to 62%) (P<.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Substantial opportunity exists to improve laboratory monitoring of drugs for which such monitoring is recommended. This study emphasizes the need for research to identify the clinical implications of not conducting recommended laboratory monitoring, existing barriers to monitoring, and methods to improve practice.
Key Wordslaboratory monitoring ambulatory drug therapy
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS, eds. To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: Committee on Quality of Health Care in American, Institute of Medicine. National Academy Press; 1999.Google Scholar
- 18.Leape LL, Lawthers AG, Brennan TA, Johnson WG. Preventing medical injury. Qual Rev Bull. 1993;19:144–9.Google Scholar
- 22.Roblin DW, Nielsen DM. Assessment of quality in adult primary care: developing process measures from administrative data. Clin Perform Qual Health Care. 1994;2:200–8.Google Scholar
- 23.Graham DJ, Drinkard DR, Shatin D. Study of liver enzyme monitoring in patients receiving troglitazone. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2000;(suppl 1):S131.Google Scholar
- 30.Chan KA, Davis RL, Gunter MJ, et al. The HMO Research Network. In: Strom BL, ed. Pharmacoepidemiology. 4th ed. Chichester, UK: Wiley; 2005 (in press).Google Scholar
- 32.Physician’s Desk Reference. 54th ed. Montvale, NJ: Medical Economics Company Inc.; 2000.Google Scholar
- 33.Food and Drug Administration. http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/safety/2000/safety00.htm.Google Scholar
- 35.Generali JA. Black box drug warnings: analgesics, anticonvulsants and anti-infectives. Hosp Pharm. 2002;37:1006–23.Google Scholar
- 36.Generali JA. Black box drug warnings: antineoplastics, vitamins and miscellaneous agents. Hosp Pharm. 2002;37:1228–46.Google Scholar
- 37.McEvoy GK, ed. AHFS Drug Information 1999. Bethesda, MD: American Society of Health-System Pharmacists; 1999.Google Scholar
- 38.Micromedex® Healthcare Series. Thomson Micromedex. Greenwood Village, Colo (Edition expires 06/2002).Google Scholar
- 43.Shabot MM, LoBue M, Chen J. Wireless clinical alerts for physiologic, laboratory and medication data. Proc AMIA Symp 2000:789–93.Google Scholar