Clinical Consequences of a Miscalibrated Digoxin Immunoassay

被引:6
作者
Lim, Aaron E. [1 ]
Tate, Jillian R. [2 ]
Clarke, David [2 ]
Norris, Ross L. [3 ,4 ,5 ]
Morris, Raymond G. [6 ]
Martin, Jennifer H. [7 ]
机构
[1] Univ Queensland, Translat Res Inst, Woolloongabba, Qld 4102, Australia
[2] Royal Brisbane & Womens Hosp, Dept Chem Pathol, Pathol Queensland, Herston, Qld, Australia
[3] Mater Res Inst, South Brisbane, Australia
[4] Griffith Univ, Sch Pharm, Gold Coast, Australia
[5] Univ Queensland, Sch Pharm, Woolloongabba, Qld 4102, Australia
[6] Univ Adelaide, KDiscipline Pharmacol, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia
[7] Princess Alexandra Hosp, Div Internal Med, Woolloongabba, Qld 4102, Australia
关键词
digoxin; therapeutic drug monitoring; serum concentrations; prescribing behavior; miscalibrated assay; INTOXICATION; DIGITALIS;
D O I
10.1097/FTD.0000000000000118
中图分类号
R446 [实验室诊断]; R-33 [实验医学、医学实验];
学科分类号
1001 ;
摘要
Background: A routine audit revealed that the analytical method used to measure digoxin concentrations by our statewide pathology provider in 2009 was underestimating digoxin concentrations by 10%. The assay was recalibrated by the manufacturer in 2010, but clinical outcomes of the underestimation were never measured. This is a pilot study to describe the prescribing behavior around out-of-range digoxin concentrations and to assess whether miscalibrated digoxin immunoassays contribute to clinically relevant effects, as measured by inappropriate alterations in digoxin doses. Methods: About 30,000 digoxin concentrations across the State Hospital system were obtained in 2 periods before and after recalibration of the digoxin assay. Digoxin concentration means were calculated and compared and were statistically significantly different. Subsequently, a single-centered retrospective review of 50 randomly chosen charts was undertaken to study the clinical implications of the underestimated concentrations. Results: Mean digoxin concentrations for 2009 and 2011 were significantly different by 8.8% (confidence interval, 7.0%-10.6%). After recalculating the 2009 concentrations to their "corrected" values, there was a 16% increase in the number of concentrations within the range when compared with the 2011 concentrations (41.48% versus 48.04%). However, overall, this did not cause unnecessary dose changes in patients who were "borderline" or outside the therapeutic range when compared with controls (P = 0.10). The majority of decisions were based on the clinical impression rather than concentration alone (85.1% versus 14.9%), even when the concentration was outside the "therapeutic range." Conclusions: Although recalculating digoxin concentrations measured during 2009 to their corrected values produced a significant change in concentration and values inside and outside the range, this does not seem to have had an influence on patient treatment. Rather, clinicians tended to use the clinical impression to dose digoxin.
引用
收藏
页码:104 / 109
页数:6
相关论文
共 13 条
  • [1] Effects of discontinuation of digoxin versus continuation at low serum digoxin concentrations in chronic heart failure
    Ahmed, Ali
    Gambassi, Giovanni
    Weaver, Michael T.
    Young, James B.
    Wehrmacher, William H.
    Rich, Michael W.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 2007, 100 (02) : 280 - 284
  • [2] DIGITALIS INTOXICATION - PROSPECTIVE CLINICAL STUDY WITH SERUM LEVEL CORRELATIONS
    BELLER, GA
    SMITH, TW
    ABLEMANN, WH
    HABER, E
    HOOD, WB
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1971, 284 (18) : 989 - +
  • [3] Clinical Repercussions of Analytical Interferences Due to Aldosterone Antagonists in Digoxin Immunoassays: An Assessment
    Cobo, Ana
    Martin-Suarez, Ana
    Victoria Calvo, Maria
    Dominguez-Gil, Alfonso
    Mar Fernandez de Gatta, Maria
    [J]. THERAPEUTIC DRUG MONITORING, 2010, 32 (02) : 169 - 176
  • [4] Ehle Michael, 2011, Crit Pathw Cardiol, V10, P93, DOI 10.1097/HPC.0b013e318221e7dd
  • [5] Discordant Results from "Real-World" Patient Samples Assayed for Digoxin
    Jones, Terry E.
    Morris, Raymond G.
    [J]. ANNALS OF PHARMACOTHERAPY, 2008, 42 (12) : 1797 - 1803
  • [6] Suspected DLIS interference in the dimension DGNA digoxin assay method and the clinical application of the revised digoxin target range
    Morris, RG
    Jones, TE
    Goldsworthy, SJ
    Wagner, TJ
    Ho, H
    Horowitz, JD
    [J]. THERAPEUTIC DRUG MONITORING, 2006, 28 (03) : 454 - 457
  • [7] Current Status of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring in Australia and New Zealand: A Need for Improved Assay Evaluation, Best Practice Guidelines, and Professional Development
    Norris, Ross L.
    Martin, Jennifer H.
    Thompson, Erin
    Ray, John E.
    Fullinfaw, Robert O.
    Joyce, David
    Barras, Michael
    Jones, Graham R.
    Morris, Raymond G.
    [J]. THERAPEUTIC DRUG MONITORING, 2010, 32 (05) : 615 - 623
  • [8] Digitalis, Yesterday and Today, But Not Forever
    Opie, Lionel H.
    [J]. CIRCULATION-CARDIOVASCULAR QUALITY AND OUTCOMES, 2013, 6 (05): : 511 - 513
  • [9] Perry G, 1997, NEW ENGL J MED, V336, P525
  • [10] Association of serum digoxin concentration and outcomes in patients with heart failure
    Rathore, SS
    Curtis, JP
    Wang, YF
    Bristow, MR
    Krumholz, HM
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2003, 289 (07): : 871 - 878