Benchmarking therapeutic drug monitoring software: A review of available computer tools

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) aims to optimize treatments by individualizing dosage regimens based on the measurement of blood concentrations. Dosage individualization to maintain concentrations within a target range requires pharmacokinetic and clinical capabilities. Bayesian calculations currently represent the gold standard TDM approach but require computation assistance. In recent decades computer programs have been developed to assist clinicians in this assignment. The aim of this survey was to assess and compare computer tools designed to support TDM clinical activities. The literature and the Internet were searched to identify software. All programs were tested on personal computers. Each program was scored against a standardized grid covering pharmacokinetic relevance, user friendliness, computing aspects, interfacing and storage. A weighting factor was applied to each criterion of the grid to account for its relative importance. To assess the robustness of the software, six representative clinical vignettes were processed through each of them. Altogether, 12 software tools were identified, tested and ranked, representing a comprehensive review of the available software. Numbers of drugs handled by the software vary widely (from two to 180), and eight programs offer users the possibility of adding new drug models based on population pharmacokinetic analyses. Bayesian computation to predict dosage adaptation from blood concentration (a posteriori adjustment) is performed by ten tools, while nine are also able to propose a priori dosage regimens, based only on individual patient covariates such as age, sex and bodyweight. Among those applying Bayesian calculation, MM-USC*PACK© uses the non-parametric approach. The top two programs emerging from this benchmark were MwPharm© and TCIWorks. Most other programs evaluated had good potential while being less sophisticated or less user friendly. Programs vary in complexity and might not fit all healthcare settings. Each software tool must therefore be regarded with respect to the individual needs of hospitals or clinicians. Programs should be easy and fast for routine activities, including for non-experienced users. Computer-assisted TDM is gaining growing interest and should further improve, especially in terms of information system interfacing, user friendliness, data storage capability and report generation.

Diagnostic yield of short-term video-EEG monitoring for epilepsy and PNESs: a European assessment.

INTRODUCTION: Although long-term video-EEG monitoring (LVEM) is routinely used to investigate paroxysmal events, short-term video-EEG monitoring (SVEM) lasting <24 h is increasingly recognized as a cost-effective tool. Since, however, relatively few studies addressed the yield of SVEM among different diagnostic groups, we undertook the present study to investigate this aspect. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 226 consecutive SVEM recordings over 6 years. All patients were referred because routine EEGs were inconclusive. Patients were classified into 3 suspected diagnostic groups: (1) group with epileptic seizures, (2) group with psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNESs), and (3) group with other or undetermined diagnoses. We assessed recording lengths, interictal epileptiform discharges, epileptic seizures, PNESs, and the definitive diagnoses obtained after SVEM. RESULTS: The mean age was 34 (±18.7) years, and the median recording length was 18.6 h. Among the 226 patients, 127 referred for suspected epilepsy - 73 had a diagnosis of epilepsy, none had a diagnosis of PNESs, and 54 had other or undetermined diagnoses post-SVEM. Of the 24 patients with pre-SVEM suspected PNESs, 1 had epilepsy, 12 had PNESs, and 11 had other or undetermined diagnoses. Of the 75 patients with other diagnoses pre-SVEM, 17 had epilepsy, 11 had PNESs, and 47 had other or undetermined diagnoses. After SVEM, 15 patients had definite diagnoses other than epilepsy or PNESs, while in 96 patients, diagnosis remained unclear. Overall, a definitive diagnosis could be reached in 129/226 (57%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that in nearly 3/5 patients without a definitive diagnosis after routine EEG, SVEM allowed us to reach a diagnosis. This procedure should be encouraged in this setting, given its time-effectiveness compared with LVEM.