Rational Testing

Monitoring aminoglycoside level

BMJ 2012; 345 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e6354 (Published 27 September 2012)
Cite this as: BMJ 2012;345:e6354

Recent rapid responses

Rapid responses are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. Although a selection of rapid responses will be included as edited readers' letters in the weekly print issue of the BMJ, their first appearance online means that they are published articles. If you need the url (web address) of an individual response, perhaps for citation purposes, simply click on the response headline and copy the url from the browser window.

Displaying 1-8 out of 8 published

I wish to thank Banerjee, Narayanan and Gould for their article on aminoglycoside use and therapeutic drug monitoring. As a barrister (and nurse), my interest in these drugs is connected to legal cases I see where patients have had an adverse reaction to a drug leaving them with permanent impairment.

Having attempted familiarise myself on the topic of aminoglycoside toxicity, I am aware a large body of literature spanning decades. There remains a belief that adequate monitoring is the solution to preventing toxicity. This theory makes several assumptions. Firstly, that the safe dose range is known, secondly the safe blood-concentration levels are known and thirdly, that toxicity is unlikely to occur in the window before the first blood level comes back.

An Australian study has found that gentamicin can be toxic at any dose and this can even occur with the first dose. Guidelines on aminoglycoside administration are ubiquitous; however the risks can be due to the human element in giving the drug.

Perhaps the wrong questions are being asked. Rather than continuing to focus on how to give a drug, the question would be why should the drug be used ? Finally, physicians may not always see how aminoglycoside toxicity affects a person. I recommend an article written by physician, Dr John Crawford in 1964 , who developed vestibular toxicity.

1.Ahmed RM, Hannigan IP, MacDougall HG, Chan RC, Halmagyi GM. Gentamicin ototoxicity: a 23-year selected case series of 103 patients, Med J Aust. 2012 Jun 18;196(11):701-4.

2.Leong CL, Buising K, Richards M, Robertson M, Street A. Providing guidelines and education is not enough: an audit of gentamicin use at The Royal Melbourne Hospital. Intern Med J. 2006 Jan;36(1):37-42.

3.Turnidge JD, Waterston JA. Gentamicin and ototoxicity: why this drug is still in use. Med J Aust. 2012 Jun 18;196(11):665-6.

4.Crawford J. Living without a balancing mechanism, Br J Ophthalmol. 1964 July; 48(7): 357–360.

Competing interests: None declared

Ngaire Watson, Barrister, Registered Nurse

NSW Bar Association, Sydney, Australia

Click to like:

We thank Banerjee and colleagues for their article which raises awareness of the ototoxic effects of aminoglycosides. We would also like to draw further attention to their vestibular effects.

Gentamicin is well described in the otolaryngology literature for its use in Meniere’s disease to treat vertigo, where its toxicity initially affects the vestibular system, then at higher doses the cochlear resulting in sensorineural deafness.(1) It is delivered locally to the round window by a variety of techniques including transtympanic injections or grommet insertions and gentamicin drops.(2) Dosing regimens are often titrated to effect, where vertigo symptoms are reduced before sensorineural hearing loss is observed.

It is therefore no surprise to see patients previously treated with aminoglycosides attending vestibular clinics. These patients have often received aminoglycoside treatment doses that have complied with locally agreed dosing regimens, yet experienced vestibular toxicity and acute imbalance, without necessarily experiencing sensorineural hearing loss. This suggests that despite their daily doses falling within dosing guidelines, the vestibular toxicity must be attributable to the cumulative dose, as gentamicin may persist in the inner ear for months after cessation of treatment.(3)

Regular medical interview, otoscopy and audiometry as the authors suggest would fail to identify those patients with vestibular toxicity, prior to the onset of sensorineural hearing loss. We commend the use of a simple bedside screen called the dynamic visual acuity test, or oscillopsia test which would help indicate early vestibular failure, enabling clinicians to consider altering therapy preventing further vestibular, or indeed cochlear side effects.(4)

1.Sajjadi H, Paparella MM. Meniere’s disease. Lancet 2008;372:406-14.
2.Pullens B, van Benthem PP. Intratympanic gentamicin for Ménière's disease or syndrome. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011,Issue 3.Art. No.: CD008234. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008234.pub2.
3.Schacht J. Mechanisms for Aminoglycoside Ototoxicity: Basic Science Research. In: Roland PS, Rutka JA, eds. Ototoxicity. Hamilton, Ontario: B.C. Decker Inc 2004:93-100.
4.Blakley BW, Barber HO, Tomlinson RD, Stoyanoff S, Mai M. On the Search for Markers of Poor Vestibular Compensation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1989;101:572-577.

Competing interests: None declared

Suzanne Jervis, ST5 in ENT

Andrew Scott, ENT Consultant

Royal Shrewsbury Hospital, Mytton Oak Road, Shrewsbury, Shropshire SY3 8XQ

Click to like:

We thank Banerjee, Narayanan and Gould for their interesting update on aminoglycoside use and therapeutic drug monitoring, however we respectfully disagree with their inclusion of cystic fibrosis in the group of conditions where "extended interval dosing is controversial, lacks adequate data, or should be avoided'. Tobramycin, the aminoglycoside of choice in exacerbations in patients with cystic fibrosis who are colonised with Pseudomonas aeruginosa, has been shown to be equally efficacious with once daily, extended interval, dosing as it is with traditional three-times daily dosing. The TOPIC study, a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial comparing the 2 regimens in 244 patients from 21 centres in the UK, published in 2005 by Smyth et al., showed similar improvements of FEV1 with evidence that the once daily regimen was less nephrotoxic in children(1). Smyth and Bhatt's recent Cochrane Database Systematic Review showed no difference in key lung function parameters, weight gain, time to next exacerbation and ototoxicity between the 2 regimens, and some evidence that nephrotoxicity may be reduced in once-daily dosing in children(2).

The Royal Brompton Hospital has one of the largest adult CF units in Europe, where we have been using extended interval tobramycin dosing for pulmonary exacerbations in adult patients with cystic fibrosis for several years. In adult patients with normal renal function and no previous adverse events with aminoglycosides we treat with tobramycin 7mg/kg once daily and measure trough tobramycin levels prior to doses 3 and 7, then twice a week thereafter.

Moreover, there are some significant practical benefits to once-daily dosing in the cystic fibrosis population, with a reduced burden of blood tests for therapeutic drug monitoring. For inpatients the reduced frequency of blood testing and the longer window for the level to be taken allows for more flexibility for our patients on the ward, who often have a busy schedule of physiotherapy, drug administration, dietitian input and exercise, as well as continuing to live their often busy lives during their admission.

There is robust evidence that once daily dosing of tobramycin is equally efficacious as traditional thrice daily regimens and reduces the burden of drug administration and therapeutic drug monitoring in cystic fibrosis patients. The evidence so far suggests that it is equally safe in children and that it is likely to be equally safe in adults. Cystic fibrosis should no longer be listed amongst the list of conditions where extended interval dosing should be avoided.

1. Smyth A, Tan KH, Hyman-Taylor P, Mulheran M, Lewis S, Stableforth D, Prof Knox A; TOPIC Study Group. Once versus three-times daily regimens of tobramycin treatment for pulmonary exacerbations of cystic fibrosis--the TOPIC study: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2005; 365:573-8

2. Smyth AR, Bhatt J. Once-daily versus multiple-daily dosing with intravenous aminoglycosides for cystic fibrosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 2:CD002009

Competing interests: None declared

Michael E B FitzPatrick, CT2 Respiratory Medicine

Keith Thompson (Senior Respiratory Pharmacist), Nicholas Simmonds (Consultant Respiratory Physician), Diana Bilton (Consultant Respiratory Physician)

Royal Brompton Hospital, Sydney Street, London SW3 6NP

Click to like:

Both Nick Murch and Sebastian Hendricks raise the issue of idiosyncratic extreme sensitivity to the ototoxic effects of aminoglycosides in those with the mitochondrial m.1555A>G mutation. The mutation is present in 1 in 300 to 1 in 500 people in the general UK population.

However, taking a maternal family history of deafness prior to aminoglycoside administration will not reliably detect those who are at risk of permament deafness due to this mutation. Penetrance is often very low (1). We have shown in two large UK cohort studies that the majority of people with this mutation have hearing that is within normal limits, unless they have been exposed to aminoglycosides (2, 3). As Sebastian Hendricks has pointed out, in those who are likely to receive repeated doses or courses of aminoglycosides, genetic testing is the only way of reliably identifying those at risk of permanent deafness. Testing should be initiated in all patients likely to receive multiple doses, regardless of family history. It is possible that a single dose may be tolerated without effect, but highly unlikely that multiple doses can be given to those with the mutation and for hearing to remain normal.

1: Dai P, Liu X, Han D, Qian Y, Huang D, Yuan H, Li W, Yu F, Zhang R, Lin H, He Y, Yu Y, Sun Q, Qin H, Li R, Zhang X, Kang D, Cao J, Young WY, Guan MX. Extremely low penetrance of deafness associated with the mitochondrial 12S rRNA mutation in 16 Chinese families: implication for early detection and prevention of deafness. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2006 Feb 3;340(1):194-9.

2: Rahman S, Ecob R, Costello H,
Sweeney MG, Duncan AJ, Pearce K, Strachan D, Forge A, Davis A, Bitner-Glindzicz M. Hearing in 44-45 year olds with m.1555A>G, a genetic mutation predisposing to aminoglycoside-induced deafness: a population based cohort study. BMJ Open. 2012 Jan 5;2:e000411.

3: Bitner-Glindzicz M, Pembrey M, Duncan A, Heron J, Ring SM, Hall A, Rahman S. Prevalence of mitochondrial 1555A-->G mutation in European children. N Engl J Med. 2009 Feb 5;360(6):640-2.

Competing interests: None declared

Maria Bitner-Glindzicz, Clinical Geneticist

Shamima Rahman

UCL Institute of Child Health, 30 Guilford St, London WC1N 1EH

Click to like:

Nick Murch's comment is very valid and important and should have been part of the original article.

To expand on this: It important that those people responsible for patients requiring repeated antibiotic treatments including aminoglycosides should test patient for this particular mutations prior to further administration.

To my knowledge, we are still not clear what causes the ototoxic effect at cochlear level and if the high peak levels in association with baseline levels or simply the cumulative effect of the drug are responsible. Therefore advice given to patients/families as well as recommendations regarding dosage regimes need to remain cautiously until we might have further evidence at some point.

Competing interests: None declared

Sebastian Hendricks, Consultant Audiovestibular Physician & Paediatrician

Barnet & Chase Farm Hospitals - University College London Hospitals, Edgware Community Hospital, Edgware, HA8 0AD

Click to like:

Thank you for the interesting summary of a practice that still has high variability between different institutions. I was surprised however that taking a thorough history from the patient or relatives with regards to a family history of premature maternal deafness is not clearly advocated prior to the commencement of aminoglycoside therapy.

A significant proportion of patients who develop aminoglycoside-induced ototoxicity carry mutations in the maternally-inherited mitochondrial DNA, with the commonest predisposing abnormality being m.1555A>G. 1 Patients with these mutations can develop after exposure to a lower cumulative dose of the aminoglycoside, possibly just a single dose, than those not possessing these mutations. 2

Genetic screening prior to commencing aminoglycoside therapy may currently not be cost-effective3 nor practical, however a genetic predisposition to aminoglycoside-induced ototoxicity could be diagnosed by the taking of an accurate and focussed family history. 1

Healthcare professionals need to be made more aware of the potentially-avoidable disastrous consequences of this routine group of antibiotics.

1. Fischel-Ghodsian N, Prezant TR, Chaltrew WE, Wendt KA, Nelson RA, Arnos KS, Falk RE. Mitochondrial gene mutation is a significant predisposing factor in aminoglycoside ototoxicity, AM J Otolaryngol 1997;18(3):173-178

2. Usami S, Abe S, Shinkawa H, Kimberling WJ, Sensorineural hearing loss caused by mitochondrial DNA mutations: special reference to the A1555G mutation, J Commun Disord 1998;31:423-34

3. Bitner-Glindzicz M, Rahman S, Ototoxicity caused by aminoglycosides is severe and permanent in genetically susceptible people, BMJ 2007;335:784-5

Competing interests: None declared

Nick Murch, Locum Consultant Physician in Acute Medicine

Royal Free Hospital, 7th floor, Pond Street, London, NW3 2QG

Click to like:

Thank you for your e-mail and relevant questions within. The remit for this article was for an update on monitoring of aminoglyside level to encompass readership of this journal worldwide, as a thought provoking guidance and raise awareness of limitations to encourage seeking of local expert advice particularly if treatment is prolonged.

We agree with you that evidence base to support measuring aminoglycoside concentration is weak, but for the clinician there has to be some tangible guidance to avoid toxicity (as this can be multi-factorial and therefore confounding in patients with co morbidities). Had this been a proper review article, we would have endeavoured to look in depth and critically appraise all existing literature on the subject.

We appreciate your views and well written article in CID,1992.

Competing interests: None declared

Suryabrata Banerjee, Specialty Registrar, Microbiology

Manjusha Narayanan, Kate Gould

Newcastle upon Tyne NHS Foundation Trust, Freeman Hospital, Freeman Road, Newcastle upon Tyne,UK, NE7 7DN

Click to like:

While reading the article “Monitoring aminoglycoside level” I was intrigued by the following statements.

1) “monitoring of therapy is essential to ensure optimal treatment and prevent toxicity” and

2) this article “reviews the available evidence for this evolving topic”

It is my understanding the evidence base to support measuring aminoglycoside concentrations is weak at best for multiple dose regimens and other than opinion is non-existent for extended interval dosing.

Twenty years ago, a colleague and I critically appraised all the available evidence for the therapeutic range of aminoglycosides and at the time we came to the conclusion that “after a critical review of the literature, it was concluded that the evidence was insufficient to support the presently accepted normal therapeutic range.” (1) To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever refuted our evaluation or conclusion.

The evidence for monitoring levels in extended interval dosing is even more questionable. In fact, I’m not aware of a single study that has ever evaluated if specific levels correlate to outcomes or toxicity or if monitoring levels ensures optimal treatment and prevents toxicity. I published this finding 12 years ago. (2)

While the Hartford nomogram is often offered as evidence for measuring levels, the authors of this nomogram state clearly “our ODA methodology was implemented as a program and not as a clinical trial” therefore “clinical and microbiological cure data are not available for comparison”.

Telling patients about the risks associated with aminoglycosides, evaluating for signs and symptoms of toxicity and keeping the overall exposure to a minimum seem to be reasonable suggestions but I was wondering if the authors are aware of any evidence to support their recommendations for aminoglycoside level measurements.

1. McCormack JP, Jewesson PJ. A critical reevaluation of the therapeutic range of aminoglycosides. Clin Inf Dis 1992;14:320-39
2. McCormack JP. An emotional-based medicine approach to monitoring once-daily aminoglycosides. Pharmacotherapy 2000;20:1524-7

Competing interests: None declared

James P McCormack, Professor

University of British Columbia, 2405 Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver

Click to like:

THIS WEEK'S POLL