The drug titration paradox: a control engineering perspective.

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY Current Opinion in Anesthesiology Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-29 DOI:10.1097/ACO.0000000000001396
Elie Sarraf
{"title":"The drug titration paradox: a control engineering perspective.","authors":"Elie Sarraf","doi":"10.1097/ACO.0000000000001396","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>The drug titration paradox describes that, from a population standpoint, drug doses appear to have a negative correlation with its clinical effect. This paradox is a relatively modern discovery in anesthetic pharmacology derived from large clinical data sets. This review will interpret the paradox using a control engineering perspective.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Drug titration is a challenging endeavor, and the medication delivery systems used in everyday clinical practice, including infusion pumps and vaporizers, typically do not allow for rapid or robust titration of medication being delivered. In addition, clinicians may be reluctant to deviate from a predetermined plan or may be content to manage patients within fixed goal boundaries.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>This drug titration paradox describes the constraints of how the average clinician will dose a patient with an unknown clinical response. While our understanding of the paradox is still in its infancy, it remains unclear how alternative dosing schemes, such as through automation, may exceed the boundaries of the paradox and potentially affect its conclusions.</p>","PeriodicalId":50609,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Anesthesiology","volume":" ","pages":"362-370"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Opinion in Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ACO.0000000000001396","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose of review: The drug titration paradox describes that, from a population standpoint, drug doses appear to have a negative correlation with its clinical effect. This paradox is a relatively modern discovery in anesthetic pharmacology derived from large clinical data sets. This review will interpret the paradox using a control engineering perspective.

Recent findings: Drug titration is a challenging endeavor, and the medication delivery systems used in everyday clinical practice, including infusion pumps and vaporizers, typically do not allow for rapid or robust titration of medication being delivered. In addition, clinicians may be reluctant to deviate from a predetermined plan or may be content to manage patients within fixed goal boundaries.

Summary: This drug titration paradox describes the constraints of how the average clinician will dose a patient with an unknown clinical response. While our understanding of the paradox is still in its infancy, it remains unclear how alternative dosing schemes, such as through automation, may exceed the boundaries of the paradox and potentially affect its conclusions.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
药物滴定悖论:控制工程的视角。
审查目的:药物滴定悖论是指,从人群的角度来看,药物剂量似乎与其临床效果呈负相关。这一悖论是麻醉药理学中一个相对较新的发现,源自大量临床数据集。本综述将从控制工程的角度来解释这一悖论:药物滴定是一项具有挑战性的工作,而日常临床实践中使用的给药系统,包括输液泵和喷雾器,通常无法对给药进行快速或稳健的滴定。此外,临床医生可能不愿意偏离预先确定的计划,或者满足于在固定目标范围内管理患者。摘要:这种药物滴定悖论描述了普通临床医生如何给临床反应未知的患者用药的限制因素。虽然我们对这一悖论的理解仍处于起步阶段,但目前仍不清楚通过自动化等替代给药方案会如何超出这一悖论的界限并可能影响其结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
8.00%
发文量
207
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: ​​​​​​​​Published bimonthly and offering a unique and wide ranging perspective on the key developments in the field, each issue of Current Opinion in Anesthesiology features hand-picked review articles from our team of expert editors. With fifteen disciplines published across the year – including cardiovascular anesthesiology, neuroanesthesia and pain medicine – every issue also contains annotated references detailing the merits of the most important papers.
期刊最新文献
Machine learning: implications and applications for ambulatory anesthesia. Spinal anesthesia in ambulatory patients. Mitigating and preventing perioperative opioid-related harm. More than pacemakers and defibrillators: perioperative management of implantable devices for patient safety. Safety amid the scalpels: creating psychological safety in the operating room.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1