Overview of systematic reviews of therapeutic ranges : methodologies and recommendations for practice

BACKGROUND: Many medicines are dosed to achieve a particular therapeutic range, and monitored using therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). The evidence base for a therapeutic range can be evaluated using systematic reviews, to ensure it continues to reflect current indications, doses, routes and formulations, as well as updated adverse effect data. There is no consensus on the optimal methodology for systematic reviews of therapeutic ranges. METHODS: An overview of systematic reviews of therapeutic ranges was undertaken. The following databases were used: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Database of Abstracts and Reviews of Effects (DARE) and MEDLINE. The published methodologies used when systematically reviewing the therapeutic range of a drug were analyzed. Step by step recommendations to optimize such systematic reviews are proposed. RESULTS: Ten systematic reviews that investigated the correlation between serum concentrations and clinical outcomes encompassing a variety of medicines and indications were assessed. There were significant variations in the methodologies used (including the search terms used, data extraction methods, assessment of bias, and statistical analyses undertaken). Therapeutic ranges should be population and indication specific and based on clinically relevant outcomes. Recommendations for future systematic reviews based on these findings have been developed. CONCLUSION: Evidence based therapeutic ranges have the potential to improve TDM practice. Current systematic reviews investigating therapeutic ranges have highly variable methodologies and there is no consensus of best practice when undertaking systematic reviews in this field. These recommendations meet a need not addressed by standard protocols

Evaluating the potential of chelation therapy to prevent and treat gadolinium deposition from MRI contrast agents

Abstract Several MRI contrast agent clinical formulations are now known to leave deposits of the heavy metal gadolinium in the brain, bones, and other organs of patients. This persistent biological accumulation of gadolinium has been recently recognized as a deleterious outcome in patients administered Gd-based contrast agents (GBCAs) for MRI, prompting the European Medicines Agency to recommend discontinuing the use of over half of the GBCAs currently approved for clinical applications. To address this problem, we find that the orally-available metal decorporation agent 3,4,3-LI(1,2-HOPO) demonstrates superior efficacy at chelating and removing Gd from the body compared to diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid, a ligand commonly used in the United States in the GBCA Gadopentetate (Magnevist). Using the radiotracer 153Gd to obtain precise biodistribution data, the results herein, supported by speciation simulations, suggest that the prophylactic or post-hoc therapeutic use of 3,4,3-LI(1,2-HOPO) may provide a means to mitigate Gd retention in patients requiring contrast-enhanced MRI