Video: Every Case Tells a Story| Webinar: ACR/CHEST ILD Guidelines in Practice

An official publication of the ACR and the ARP serving rheumatologists and rheumatology professionals

  • Conditions
    • Axial Spondyloarthritis
    • Gout and Crystalline Arthritis
    • Myositis
    • Osteoarthritis and Bone Disorders
    • Pain Syndromes
    • Pediatric Conditions
    • Psoriatic Arthritis
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • Sjögren’s Disease
    • Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
    • Systemic Sclerosis
    • Vasculitis
    • Other Rheumatic Conditions
  • FocusRheum
    • ANCA-Associated Vasculitis
    • Axial Spondyloarthritis
    • Gout
    • Psoriatic Arthritis
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
  • Guidance
    • Clinical Criteria/Guidelines
    • Ethics
    • Legal Updates
    • Legislation & Advocacy
    • Meeting Reports
      • ACR Convergence
      • Other ACR meetings
      • EULAR/Other
    • Research Rheum
  • Drug Updates
    • Analgesics
    • Biologics/DMARDs
  • Practice Support
    • Billing/Coding
    • EMRs
    • Facility
    • Insurance
    • QA/QI
    • Technology
    • Workforce
  • Opinion
    • Patient Perspective
    • Profiles
    • Rheuminations
      • Video
    • Speak Out Rheum
  • Career
    • ACR ExamRheum
    • Awards
    • Career Development
  • ACR
    • ACR Home
    • ACR Convergence
    • ACR Guidelines
    • Journals
      • ACR Open Rheumatology
      • Arthritis & Rheumatology
      • Arthritis Care & Research
    • From the College
    • Events/CME
    • President’s Perspective
  • Search

When to Check Drug Levels & Why

Stephen J. Balevic, MD, PhD, RhMSUS  |  Issue: March 2024  |  March 7, 2024

Step 3: Compare Apples to Apples

Whenever we check drug concentrations in a patient, we need to be able to compare this level with some target from the literature to know whether or not it is in a range that is efficacious, toxic or associated with non-adherence. As seen in steps 1 and 2 of this tutorial, it is crucial to compare apples to apples—drug levels at the same dose and taken at the same time, noting whether the sample was drawn at steady state. A few other reasons may explain why drug levels differ across studies, including the assay used to detect the drug, the units of measure (e.g., ng/mL vs. μg/mL) and the matrix/sample the drug is measured in (e.g., whole blood, serum or plasma).

Click to enlarge.

Table 1 summarizes the typical matrix and assay used for various DMARDs. For reference, 1 ng/mL=0.001 mg/L=0.001 μg/mL.

The majority of drug levels are measured in plasma or serum, which generally have similar performance characteristics. However, certain drugs, such as HCQ, partition into red blood cells, meaning whole blood levels are much higher than in plasma or serum and cannot be directly compared. For HCQ, whole blood levels are more precise and are generally preferred for non-pregnant patients.7 Additionally, different assays are used to measure drug levels, and the assays may or may not correlate well with one another. Most small molecule DMARDs can be detected using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). However, assay techniques for biologic drugs are variable and perform differently in the presence of anti-drug antibodies.1

ad goes here:advert-2
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

Step 4 (The Last Step): It’s Your Patient

The final step to interpreting a drug level is to individualize the results to the patient in front of you. Individual patients may have drug levels that deviate from expected for a variety of reasons, including medication non-adherence, physiologic alterations in drug pharmacokinetics (e.g., genetics, extremes of body weight, and effects of their disease on organ function), the presence of anti-drug antibodies and drug-drug interactions, among others. Individual interpretation is drug specific and requires a basic understanding of the drug’s pharmacology. For example, HCQ is excreted renally, and blood levels are higher in patients with significant renal disease. As a second example, mycophenolate mofetil drug levels are reduced in the presence of a protonpump inhibitor and if administered with magnesium or aluminum hydroxide antacids.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Single Page
Share: 

Filed under:Biologics/DMARDsConditionsDrug UpdatesRheumatoid ArthritisSystemic Lupus Erythematosus Tagged with:adalimumabadherenceazathioprinedosagedosage adjustmentdrug levelsetanerceptHYDROXYCHLOROQUINEinfliximabmycophenoloateSLE Resource Centertherapeutic drug monitoring

Related Articles

    Reading Rheum

    November 1, 2007

    Handpicked Reviews of Contemporary Literature

    Should Hydroxychloroquine Level Testing Be Standard Care in Lupus?

    February 13, 2020

    The Johns Hopkins Lupus Center, Baltimore, has described its experience using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) levels.1 Forty-four percent of its patients had levels below 500 ng/mL (partial nonadherence); 13% were severely nonadherent (<200 ng/mL). They were shown their results and educated on HCQ adherence. Adherence then improved to 80%; those with lower HCQ levels had higher disease…

    New Study Probes Hydroxychloroquine Adherence During Pregnancy

    May 11, 2023

    Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is nearly universally recommended for pregnant patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) to reduce lupus disease activity and adverse outcomes in pregnancy.1-3 Yet despite strong evidence supporting its benefits, HCQ appears underutilized, with several studies suggesting fewer than half of all women with lupus take this medication during pregnancy.4 How accurately these results…

    Rheumatologists Debate Hydroxychloroquine Dosing Guidelines for Lupus

    February 18, 2019

    CHICAGO—The correct dosing of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a concern of all rheumatologists. Petros Efthimiou, MD, clinical professor of medicine at New York University, New York City, opened the Great Debate of the 2018 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting by stating, “Today, we will be discussing a critical clinical problem that affects everyone’s…

  • About Us
  • Meet the Editors
  • Issue Archives
  • Contribute
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us
  • Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 1931-3268 (print). ISSN 1931-3209 (online).
  • DEI Statement
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookie Preferences