[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.211.179.232. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Comparison of the Initial Doses Recommended in the PDR vs Lower Effective Doses in the Medical Literature*
Comparison of the Initial Doses Recommended in the PDR vs Lower Effective Doses in the Medical Literature*
1.
Lazarou  JPomeranz  BHCorey  PN Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA. 1998;2791200- 1205Article
2.
Bates  DW Drugs and adverse drug reactions: how worried should we be? JAMA. 1998;2791216- 1217Article
3.
Clark  WGBrater  DCJohnson  AR Pharmacogenetics: the individual response to drugs. Goth's Medical Pharmacology. 12th ed. St Louis, Mo CV Mosby Co1988;48
4.
Melmon  KLMorrelli  HFHoffman  BBNierenberg  DW Melmon and Morrelli's Clinical Pharmacology: Basic Principles in Therapeutics. 3rd ed. New York, NY McGraw-Hill Co1993;
5.
Faich  GA Adverse-drug-reaction reporting. N Engl J Med. 1986;3141589- 1592Article
6.
Not Available, Physicians' Desk Reference. 53rd ed. Montvale, NJ Medical Economics Co1999;
7.
Peck  CCBarr  WHBenet  LZ  et al.  Opportunities for integration of pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and toxicokinetics in rational drug development. J Clin Pharmacol. 1994;34111- 119Article
8.
Ray  WAGriffin  MRAvorn  J Evaluating drugs after their approval for clinical use. N Engl J Med. 1993;3292029- 2032Article
9.
Cohen  JSInsel  PA The Physicians' Desk Reference: problems and possible improvements. Arch Intern Med. 1996;1561375- 1380Article
10.
Connelly  DPRich  ECCurley  SPKelly  JT Knowledge resource preferences of family physicians. J Fam Pract. 1990;30353- 359
11.
Ely  JWBurch  RJVinson  DC The information needs of family physicians: case-specific clinical questions. J Fam Pract. 1992;35265- 269
12.
American Medical Association, AMA Drug Evaluations.  Chicago, Ill American Medical Association1996;
13.
McEvoy  GK American Hospital Formulary Service, Drug Information 1999.  Bethesda, Md American Society of Health-System Pharmacists1999;
14.
Not Available, Drug Facts and Comparisons.  St Louis, Mo Facts & Comparisons, Inc1996;
15.
Marks  L "Not just a statistic": the history of USA and UK policy over thrombotic disease and the oral contraceptive pill, 1960s-1970s. Soc Sci Med. 1999;491139- 1155Article
16.
Lenfant  CJoint National Commission on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure, JNC guidelines: is the message getting through? JAMA. 1997;2781778- 1779Article
17.
Siegel  DLopez  J Trends in antihypertensive drug use in the United States: do the JNC V recommendations affect prescribing? JAMA. 1997;2781745- 1748Article
18.
Buckley  B 34th annual top 200 drug issue. Pharmacy Times. 1999;6516- 22
19.
Not Available, Estrogen-progestin combinations for postmenopausal use. Med Lett Drugs Ther. 1995;3753- 54
20.
Greendale  GAReboussin  BAHogan  P  et al.  Symptom relief and side effects of postmenopausal hormones: results from the Postmenopausal Estrogen/Progestin Interventions trial. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;92982- 988Article
21.
Lobo  RAPickar  JHWild  RAWalsh  BHirvonen  EMenopause Study Group, Metabolic impact of adding medroxyprogesterone acetate to conjugated estrogen therapy in postmenopausal women. Obstet Gynecol. 1994;84987- 995
22.
Corson  SL A practical guide to prescribing estrogen replacement therapy. Int J Fertil Menopausal Stud. 1995;40229- 247
23.
Ettinger  B Personal perspective on low-dosage estrogen therapy for postmenopausal women. Menopause. 1999;6273- 276Article
24.
Recker  RRDavies  KMDowd  RMHeaney  RP The effect of low-dose continuous estrogen and progesterone therapy with calcium and vitamin D on bone in elderly women: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130897- 904Article
25.
Genant  HKLucas  JWeiss  S  et al.  Prevention of postmenopausal bone loss with minimal uterine bleeding using low dose continuous estrogen/progestin therapy: a 2-year prospective study. Maturitas. 1997;2769- 76Article
26.
Feldman  RBacher  MCampbell  NDrover  AChockalingam  A Adherence to pharmacologic management of hypertension. Can J Public Health. 1998;89I16- I18
27.
Sanson-Fisher  RWClover  K Compliance in the treatment of hypertension: a need for action. Am J Hypertens. 1995;8 ((pt 2)) 82S- 88SArticle
28.
Not Available, The sixth report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Arch Intern Med. 1997;1572413- 2446Article
29.
Cohen  JS Adverse drug effects, compliance, and initial doses of antihypertensive drugs recommended by the Joint National Committee vs the Physicians' Desk ReferenceArch Intern Med. 2001;161880- 885Article
30.
McQuay  HJCarroll  DGlynn  CJ Dose-response for analgesic effect of amitriptyline in chronic pain. Anaesthesia. 1993;48281- 285Article
31.
Roy  DDawling  S Application of an individually predicted dosage of amitriptyline to the treatment of depression. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 1987;2307- 315Article
32.
Nawrocki  JWWeiss  SRDavidson  MH  et al.  Reduction of LDL cholesterol by 25% to 60% in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia by atorvastatin, a new HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 1995;15678- 682Article
33.
Cilla Jr  DDWhitfield  LRGibson  DMSedman  AJPosvar  EL Multiple-dose pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of atorvastatin, an inhibitor of HMG-CoA reductase, in healthy subjects. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1996;60687- 695Article
34.
Elliott  RLShillcutt  SD Using newer antidepressants in the medically ill: an update. Primary Psychiatry. 1996;342- 56
35.
Kirksey  DFHarto-Truax  N Private practice evaluation of the safety and efficacy of bupropion in depressed outpatients. J Clin Psychiatry. 1983;44(pt 2)143- 147
36.
Stern  WCHarto-Truax  NBauer  N Efficacy of bupropion in tricyclic-resistant or intolerant patients. J Clin Psychiatry. 1983;44(pt 2)148- 152
37.
Bensen  WGFiechtner  JJMcMillen  JI  et al.  Treatment of osteoarthritis with celecoxib, a cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor: a randomized controlled trial. Mayo Clin Proc. 1999;741095- 1105Article
38.
Davignon  JHanefeld  MNakaya  NHunninghake  DBInsull Jr  WOse  L Clinical efficacy and safety of cerivastatin: summary of pivotal phase IIb/III studies. Am J Cardiol. 1998;82 ((4B)) 32J- 39JArticle
39.
Betteridge  DJInternational Cerivastatin Study Group, International multicentre comparison of cerivastatin with placebo and simvastatin for the treatment of patients with primary hypercholesterolaemia. Int J Clin Pract. 1999;53243- 250
40.
Young  MDFrank  WODickson  BDPeace  KPBraverman  AMounce  W Determining the optimal dosage regimen for H2-receptor antagonist therapy: a dose validation approach. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 1989;347- 57Article
41.
Ingemanson  CACarrington  BSikstrom  BBjorkman  R Diclofenac in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhoea. Curr Ther Res. 1981;30632- 639
42.
Duerrigl  TVitaus  MPucar  IMiko  M Diclofenac sodium (Voltaren): results of a multi-centre comparative trial in adult-onset rheumatoid arthritis. J Int Med Res. 1975;3139- 144
43.
Kantor  TG Use of diclofenac in analgesia. Am J Med. 1986;8064- 69Article
44.
Kuhlwein  AMeyer  HJKoehler  CO Reduced diclofenac administration by B vitamins: results of a randomized double-blind study with reduced daily doses of diclofenac (75 mg diclofenac versus 75 mg diclofenac plus B vitamins) in acute lumbar vertebral syndromes [in German]. Klin Wochenschr. 1990;68107- 115Article
45.
Machtey  I Diclofenac in the treatment of painful joints and traumatic tendinitis (including strains and sprains): a brief review. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 1985;15(suppl 1)87- 92Article
46.
Mutru  OPenttila  MPesonen  JSalmela  PSuhonen  OSonck  T Diclofenac sodium (Voltaren) and indomethacin in the ambulatory treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a double-blind multicentre study. Scand J Rheumatol Suppl. 1978;(22)51- 56Article
47.
Siegmeth  WPlacheta  P Long-term comparative study: diclofenac (Voltaren) and naproxen (Proxen) in arthritis [in German]. Schweiz Med Wochenschr. 1978;108349- 353
48.
Ciccolunghi  SNChaudri  HASchubiger  BIReddrop  R Report on a long-term tolerability study of up to two years with diclofenac sodium (Voltaren). Scand J Rheumatol. 1978;(22)86- 96Article
49.
Ciccolunghi  SNChaudri  HASchubiger  BI The value and results of long-term studies with diclofenac sodium (Voltarol). Rheumatol Rehabil. 1979;Suppl 2100- 115
50.
McCue  R Using tricyclic antidepressants in the elderly. Clin Geriatr Med. 1992;8323- 334
51.
Ray  WPurushottam  BTShorr  RI Medications and the older driver. Clin Geriatr Med. 1993;9413- 432
52.
Savarino  VMela  GSZentilin  P  et al.  Low bedtime doses of H2-receptor antagonists for acute treatment of duodenal ulcers. Dig Dis Sci. 1989;341043- 1046Article
53.
Fiorucci  SClausi  GGCascetta  RFarinelli  MFPelli  MAMorelli  A Effects of low and high doses of famotidine and ranitidine on nocturnal gastric pH. Dig Dis Sci. 1986;31(suppl 10)393S
54.
Tinkelman  DFalliers  MBronsky  E  et al.  Efficacy and safety of fexofenadine in fall seasonal allergic rhinitis [abstract]. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1996;971009Article
55.
Wernicke  JFDunlop  SRDornseif  BEBosomworth  JCHumbert  M Low-dose fluoxetine therapy for depression. Psychopharmacol Bull. 1988;24183- 188
56.
Louie  AKLewis  TBLannon  MD Use of low-dose fluoxetine in major depression and panic disorder. J Clin Psychiatry. 1993;54435- 438
57.
Salzman  C Practical considerations in the pharmacologic treatment of depression and anxiety in the elderly. J Clin Psychiatry. 1990;51(suppl)40- 43
58.
Schatzberg  AF Dosing strategies for antidepressant agents. J Clin Psychiatry. 1991;52(suppl)14- 20
59.
Sheehan  DVHartnett-Sheehan  K The role of SSRIs in panic disorder. J Clin Psychiatry. 1996;57Suppl 1051- 58
60.
Stewart  JWQuitkin  FMKlein  DF The pharmacotherapy of minor depression. Am J Psychother. 1992;4623- 36
61.
Cain  JW Poor response to fluoxetine: underlying depression, serotonergic overstimulation, or a "therapeutic window"? J Clin Psychiatry. 1992;53272- 277
62.
Jick  H Evaluation of drug efficacy by a preference technic. N Engl J Med. 1966;2751399- 1403Article
63.
Jick  HSlone  DDinan  BMuench  H Comparative studies with a hypnotic (RO 5-6901) under current investigation. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 1967;9355- 357
64.
Kales  ABixler  EOScharf  MKales  JD Sleep laboratory studies of flurazepam: a model for evaluating hypnotic drugs. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1976;19576- 583
65.
Thompson  MBell  D Further experience with ibuprofen in the treatment of arthritis. Rheumatol Phys Med. 1970;10Suppl 10100- 103
66.
Bloomfield  SSMitchell  JBichlmeir  GBarden  TP Low dose ibuprofen and aspirin analgesia for postpartum uterine cramps [abstract]. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1983;33194
67.
Helzner  ECFricke  JCunningham  BG An evaluation of ibuprofen 200mg, ibuprofen 400mg and naproxen 200mg and 400mg in postoperative oral surgery pain [abstract]. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1992;51122
68.
Cooper  SA The relative efficacy of ibuprofen in dental pain. Compendium Continuing Educ Dent. 1987;8578- 597
69.
Cooper  SA Five studies on ibuprofen for postsurgical dental pain. Am J Med. 1984;7770- 77Article
70.
Shapiro  SSDiem  K The effects of ibuprofen in the treatment of dysmenorrhea. Curr Ther Res. 1981;30327- 334
71.
Chalmers  TM Clinical experience with ibuprofen in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 1969;28513- 517Article
72.
Brooks  CDSchmid  FRBiundo  J  et al.  Ibuprofen and aspirin in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a cooperative double-blind trial. Rheumatol Phys Med. 1970;10(suppl 10)48- 63Article
73.
Brune  K The pharmacological profile of non-opioid (OTC) analgesics: aspirin, paracetamol (acetaminophen), ibuprofen, and phenazones. Agents Actions Suppl. 1988;259- 19
74.
Sindrup  SHBrosen  KGram  LF Nonlinear kinetics of imipramine in low and medium plasma level ranges. Ther Drug Monit. 1990;12445- 449Article
75.
Jobson  KLinnoila  MGillam  JSullivan  JL Successful treatment of severe anxiety attacks with tricyclic antidepressants: a potential mechanism of action. Am J Psychiatry. 1978;135863- 864
76.
Lydiard  RBBallenger  JC Antidepressants in panic disorder and agoraphobia. J Affect Disord. 1987;13153- 168Article
77.
Zitrin  CMKlein  DFWoerner  MG Behavior therapy, supportive psychotherapy, imipramine, and phobias. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1978;35307- 316Article
78.
Preskorn  S Pharmacokinetics of antidepressants: why and how they are relevant to treatment. J Clin Psychiatry. 1993;54(suppl)14- 34
79.
Rubinstein  ALurie  YGroskop  IWeintrob  M Cholesterol-lowering effects of a 10 mg daily dose of lovastatin in patients with initial cholesterol levels 200 to 240 mg/dL (5.18 to 6.21 mmol/liter). Am J Cardiol. 1991;681123- 1126Article
80.
Arca  MVega  GLGrundy  SM Hypercholesterolemia in postmenopausal women: metabolic defects and response to low-dose lovastatin. JAMA. 1994;271453- 459Article
81.
Cohen  MMClark  LArmstrong  LD'Souza  J Reduction of aspirin-induced fecal blood loss with low-dose misoprostol tablets in man. Dig Dis Sci. 1985;30605- 611Article
82.
Dajani  EZNissen  CH Gastrointestinal cytoprotective effects of misoprostol: clinical efficacy overview. Dig Dis Sci. 1985;30(suppl)194S- 200SArticle
83.
Lanza  FLFakouhi  DRubin  A  et al.  A double-blind placebo-controlled comparison of the efficacy and safety of 50, 100, and 200 micrograms of misoprostol QID in the prevention of ibuprofen-induced gastric and duodenal mucosal lesions and symptoms. Am J Gastroenterol. 1989;84633- 636
84.
Jiranek  GCKimmey  MBSaunders  DRWillson  RAShanahan  WSilverstein  FE Misoprostol reduces gastroduodenal injury from one week of aspirin: an endoscopic study. Gastroenterology. 1989;96(pt 2 suppl)656- 661
85.
Fontaine  ROntiveros  AElie  R  et al.  A double-blind comparison of nefazodone, imipramine, and placebo in major depression. J Clin Psychiatry. 1994;55234- 241
86.
Freeman  EWRickels  KSondheimer  SJDenis  APfeifer  SWeil  S Nefazodone in the treatment of premenstrual syndrome: a preliminary study. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 1994;14180- 186Article
87.
Rickels  KSchweizer  EClary  CFox  IWeise  C Nefazodone and imipramine in major depression: a placebo-controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry. 1994;164802- 805Article
88.
Sussman  NStimmel  G New dosing strategies for psychotropic drugs. Primary Psychiatry. 1997;424- 30
89.
Cloud  MLOffen  WWMatsumoto  C Healing and subsequent recurrence of duodenal ulcer in a clinical trial comparing nizatidine 300-mg and 100-mg evening doses and placebo in the treatment of active duodenal ulcer. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 1989;45359- 367
90.
Dyck  WPCloud  MLOffen  WWMatsumoto  CChernish  SM Treatment of duodenal ulcers in the United States. Scand J Gastroenterol. 1987;22(suppl 136)47- 55Article
91.
Samanta  ANahass  DHabba  S Efficacy of nizatidine: a new H2 receptor antagonist in the treatment of duodenal ulcer: a dose response study [abstract]. Am J Gastroenterol. 1986;81852
92.
Sjoqvist  FBertilsson  L Clinical pharmacology of antidepressant drugs: pharmacogenetics. Adv Biochem Psychopharmacol. 1984;39359- 372
93.
Behounek  BDMcGovern  MEKassler-Taub  KBMarkowitz  JSBergman  MPravastatin Multinational Study Group for Diabetes, A multinational study of the effects of low-dose pravastatin in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus and hypercholesterolemia. Clin Cardiol. 1994;17558- 562Article
94.
Jones  PHFarmer  JACressman  MD  et al.  Once-daily pravastatin in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia: a dose-response study. Clin Cardiol. 1991;14146- 151Article
95.
Lauritsen  KAndersen  BNHavelund  TLaursen  LSHansen  J Effect of 10 mg and 20 mg omeprazole daily on duodenal ulcer: double-blind comparative trial. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 1989;359- 67Article
96.
Lauritsen  KAndersen  BNLaursen  LSHansen  JHavelund  T Omeprazole 20 mg three days a week and 10 mg daily in prevention of duodenal ulcer relapse: double-blind comparative trial. Gastroenterology. 1991;100663- 669
97.
Beck  TMCiociola  AAJones  SE  et al.  Efficacy of oral ondansetron in the prevention of emesis in outpatients receiving cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118407- 413Article
98.
Beck  TM Efficacy of ondansetron tablets in the management of chemotherapy-induced emesis: review of clinical trials. Semin Oncol. 1992;19(suppl 15)20- 25
99.
Cubeddu  LXPendergrass  KRyan  T  et al.  Efficacy of oral ondansetron, a selective antagonist of 5-HT3 receptors, in the treatment of nausea and vomiting associated with cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapies. Am J Clin Oncol. 1994;17137- 146Article
100.
Berstad  AKett  KAadland  E  et al.  Treatment of duodenal ulcer with ranitidine, a new histamine H2-receptor antagonist. Scand J Gastroenterol. 1980;15637- 639Article
101.
Dobrilla  GBarbara  LBianchi-Porro  G  et al.  Placebo controlled studies with ranitidine in duodenal ulcer. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl. 1981;69(suppl)101- 105
102.
Dobrilla  Gde Pretis  GFelder  MChilovi  F Endoscopic double-blind controlled trial of ranitidine vs placebo in the short-term treatment of duodenal ulcer. Hepatogastroenterology. 1981;2849- 52
103.
Langman  JSHenry  DAOgilvie  A Ranitidine and cimetidine for duodenal ulcer. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl. 1981;69(suppl)115- 117
104.
Zinner  SH Panic attacks precipitated by sertraline. Am J Psychiatry. 1994;151147- 148
105.
Saku  KSasaki  JArakawa  K Low-dose effect of simvastatin on serum lipids, lipoproteins, and apolipoproteins in patients with hypercholesterolemia. Clin Ther. 1989;11247- 257
106.
Steinhagen-Thiessen  ESimvastatin Pravastatin European Study Group, Comparative efficacy and tolerability of 5 and 10 mg simvastatin and 10 mg pravastatin in moderate primary hypercholesterolemia. Cardiology. 1994;85244- 254Article
107.
Tuomilehto  JGuimaraes  ACKettner  H  et al.  Dose-response of simvastatin in primary hypercholesterolemia. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 1994;24941- 949Article
108.
Walker  JFTobert  JA The clinical efficacy of lovastatin and MK-733 (simvastatin): an overview. Eur Heart J. 1987;8(suppl E)93- 96Article
109.
Yoshida  HIshikawa  TAyaori  M  et al.  Effect of low-dose simvastatin on cholesterol levels, oxidative susceptibility, and antioxidant levels of low-density lipoproteins in patients with hypercholesterolemia: a pilot study. Clin Ther. 1995;17379- 389Article
110.
Yoshino  GKazumi  TMatsushita  M  et al.  Comparison of the effects of pravastatin and simvastatin in hypercholesterolemic subjects. Curr Ther Res. 1990;48259- 267
111.
Bryant  SGHokanson  JABrown  CS A drug utilization review of prescribing patterns for trazodone vs. amitriptyline. J Clin Psychiatry. 1990;51(suppl)27- 29
112.
Maletta  GMattox  KMDysken  M Guidelines for prescribing psychoactive drugs in the elderly: part 1. Geriatrics. 1991;4640- 47
113.
Schatzberg  AFDessain  EO'Neil  PKatz  DLCole  JO Recent studies on selective serotonergic antidepressants: trazodone, fluoxetine, and fluvoxamine. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 1987;7(suppl 6)44S- 49SArticle
114.
Mendels  JJohnston  RMattes  JRiesenberg  R Efficacy and safety of b.i.d. doses of venlafaxine in a dose-response study. Psychopharmacol Bull. 1993;29169- 174
115.
Geracioti Jr  TD Venlafaxine treatment of panic disorder: a case series. J Clin Psychiatry. 1995;56408- 410
116.
Jackson  JLouwerens  JCnossen  FDe Jong  H Testing the effects of the imidazopyridine zolpidem on memory: an ecologically valid approach. Hum Psychopharmacol. 1992;7325- 330Article
117.
Merlotti  LRoehrs  TKoshorek  GZorick  FLamphere  JRoth  T The dose effects of zolpidem on the sleep of healthy normals. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 1989;99- 14Article
118.
Wolfe  MMLichtenstein  DRSingh  G Gastrointestinal toxicity of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. N Engl J Med. 1999;3401888- 1899Article
119.
Avorn  JMonette  JLacour  A  et al.  Persistence of use of lipid-lowering medications: a cross-national study. JAMA. 1998;2791458- 1462Article
120.
Roberts  WC The underused miracle drugs: the statin drugs are to atherosclerosis what penicillin was to infectious disease. Am J Cardiol. 1996;78377- 378Article
121.
Cauley  JACummings  SRBlack  DMMascioli  SRSeeley  DG Prevalence and determinants of estrogen replacement therapy in elderly women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1990;163(pt 1)1438- 1444Article
122.
Woosley  RLChen  YFreiman  JPGillis  RA Mechanism of the cardiotoxic actions of terfenadine. JAMA. 1993;2691532- 1536Article
123.
Brandon  MLWeiner  M Clinical investigation of terfenadine, a non-sedating antihistamine. Ann Allergy. 1980;4471- 75
124.
Brandon  MLWeiner  M Clinical studies of terfenadine in seasonal allergic rhinitis. Arzneimittelforschung. 1982;321204- 1205
Original Investigation
April 09, 2001

Dose Discrepancies Between the Physicians' Desk Reference and the Medical Literature, and Their Possible Role in the High Incidence of Dose-Related Adverse Drug Events

Author Affiliations

From the Departments of Family and Preventive Medicine and Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla.

Arch Intern Med. 2001;161(7):957-964. doi:10.1001/archinte.161.7.957
Abstract

Background  Adverse drug events (ADEs) are a major cause of morbidity and mortality, and even minor ADEs may adversely affect patients' compliance with treatment. Because most ADEs are dose-related phenomena, adjusting drug dosages to account for individual patients' needs and tolerances is fundamental to good therapeutics.

Objective  To determine whether the Physicians' Desk Reference (PDR), the leading source of drug information for physicians, provides the full range of effective drug doses, especially the lowest, least ADE-prone doses of medications, for physicians to consider in treating patients.

Methods  Review of dosage guidelines and dose-response information in the PDR. Comparison with dose-response data obtained from articles listed in MEDLINE from 1966 to 2000.

Results  For many types of medications, physicians are frequently advised to use the lowest effective doses of drugs, especially initially. Yet, effective low doses determined in prerelease studies or in postrelease work are often omitted from the PDR, even when they have been recommended by expert panels.

Conclusions  Optimal therapeutics depends on the availability of comprehensive information. However, the PDR contains only the limited dose information from package inserts. Because the PDR was originally developed as a promotional device, there is no mechanism by which all clinically relevant dose-response data or important postrelease discoveries are regularly and rapidly incorporated into it. Thus, a gap exists in the availability of current and comprehensive dose information for physicians. This article provides information on lower, effective doses for 48 major medications, with an extensive reference list—a compilation of low-dose information not previously published, to our knowledge, in the medical literature. Physicians must have a readily accessible source of current and complete dose-response information to individualize drug therapy and minimize the risks of ADEs.

OPINIONS DIFFER regarding the extent of iatrogenic illness secondary to medication reactions, but there is general agreement that this is an important problem. The most recent meta-analysis determined that in 1994 an estimated 106 000 hospital patients had fatal adverse drug events (ADEs), "making these events between the fourth and sixth leading cause of death" in the United States annually.1(p1200) The study also estimated that 2 216 000 hospitalized patients had ADEs that were considered serious, which the study defined as requiring hospitalization, being permanently disabling, or resulting in death. Clearly, even more ADEs occur that do not reach these levels of severity. In a recent editorial, Bates addressed questions about these statistics by stating, "Even if the true incidence of ADEs is somewhat lower than reported by Lazarou et al, it is still high, and much higher than generally recognized."2(p1216) This statement probably represents the general viewpoint.

DOSE-RELATED ADEs

Data quantifying the percentage of ADEs that are caused by dose-related effects of drugs are limited. Goth's Medical Pharmacology states, "Many adverse reactions probably arise from failure to tailor the dosage of drugs to widely different individual needs."3(p48) Melmon and Morrelli's Clinical Pharmacology4 places the percentage of ADEs that are dose related at 75% to 85%. The study by Lazarou et al1 presents the most recent and extensive assessment, finding that 76.2% of the ADEs tallied were dose related.

Beyond the statistics, the study by Lazarou et al1 was unique in another important aspect: unlike previous studies, this study excluded errors by physicians and pharmacists. The goal was to assess ADEs that occur with standard methods of care. In doing so, the study demonstrated "that there are a large number of serious ADEs even when the drugs are properly prescribed and administered."1(p1203) Supporting these findings is an earlier study by Faich that found that of approximately 37 000 ADE reports submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1985, 71% "involved toxic reactions to usual doses of drugs."5(p2068) Clearly, prescribing within manufacturers' dosage guidelines is no guarantee of avoiding ADEs.

ADEs AT "USUAL" DOSES

"Usual doses of drugs" typically refers to the doses recommended by manufacturers in package inserts. Because the drug descriptions in the Physicians' Desk Reference (PDR)6 are identical to package inserts, these usual doses are also recommended in the PDR. Physicians generally accept and follow the manufacturers' dose guidelines because it is the drug companies that performed the pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, dose-response, and clinical studies during prerelease research. Furthermore, these manufacturer-recommended doses are sanctioned by the FDA when approving the original content and subsequent changes in package inserts.

However, if more than 75% of ADEs are dose related and occur at the usual, manufacturer-recommended doses, are these doses really proper for some patients? Because so many ADEs are dose related, is it not possible that for some patients these doses may be excessive? This raises the question of how the usual doses are selected and whether they can reasonably be expected to match the broad variation in drug response among patients.

USUAL DOSES ARE BASED ON PRERELEASE RESEARCH

The manufacturer-recommended doses of medications are usually selected during phase 1, early in the process of prerelease research. The studies on which dose selection is based may be brief and limited in scope, often involving 100 subjects or fewer. Thus, according to Peck et al, "the extra time needed to explore the full dose range and various dose intervals to obtain good dose and concentration information may not be committed. . . . "7(p117)The result is that "on too many occasions failure to define dose-concentration-response relationships leads to unacceptable toxicity or adverse effect rates, marginal evidence of effectiveness, and a lack of information on how to individualize dosing."7(p117) Other experts2,8 have also commented on the inapplicability of prerelease data to patients seen in everyday practice. Of course, this is not always the case, but when deficiencies do exist, they are not readily apparent to physicians based on the information provided in PDR drug descriptions.

POSTRELEASE DOSE INFORMATION

After a drug is introduced for general use—and the package insert is written and codified in the PDR—the postrelease phase of drug experience (phase 4) begins. Because phase 4 often involves millions of patients over many years, this phase can be extremely informative. Bates writes: "Only after drugs leave the trial setting and are used in sicker patients do their true risks become apparent."2(p1217) Phase 4 often reveals new uses for drugs or higher incidences or new types of ADEs. Phase 4 also engenders independent research that reveals the effectiveness of doses that differ from those recommended by the manufacturer. Sometimes, these doses are significantly lower and may cause fewer ADEs.

Once a lower dose is adequately studied, one would expect that this dose would be used by physicians. However, this would require that physicians receive the new information, which is not easily accomplished. Even though a low-dose study may be published, there are hundreds of journals, and physicians typically subscribe to just a few. Nor do physicians read every article of every issue they receive. Therefore, it is important that drug references commonly used by physicians incorporate the new information about lower, effective drug doses, so that this information can be disseminated in an organized, ongoing manner to improve medication therapy and prevent dose-related ADEs.

PHYSICIANS' USE OF THE PDR AND OTHER SOURCES OF DRUG INFORMATION

The PDR is the leading drug reference among physicians (Medical Economics Company, written communication, September 23, 1999).911 According to surveys conducted by the Medical Economics Company (written communication, September 23, 1999), 82% to 90% of physicians consider the PDR their single most useful reference.9 The average US physician consults the PDR approximately 8 times per week (Medical Economics Company, written communication, September 23, 1999)9; an independent study10(p353) found "almost daily use" of the PDR. The PDR's extremely handy indexes, easy-to-use format, and state-of-the-art pill identification section may in part explain its popularity among physicians. Undoubtedly, another factor is that, each year, more than 500 000 PDRs are delivered free to physicians' offices.

Other drug references have difficulty competing against the PDR, which is underwritten by the pharmaceutical industry. For example, in 1994 only 16 000 volumes of the respected AMA Drug Evaluations,12 which cost more than $100 per volume, were published. In 1996, the AMA Drug Evaluations ceased publication. The American Hospital Formulary Service, Drug Information 199913 contains some low-dose data, but it is sold primarily to pharmacies. Relatively few physicians purchase it. Drug Facts and Comparisons14 contains little low-dose data and is used primarily by pharmacists.

Other sources of information may also be underused. An article published in 1990 found little use of the "Index Medicus or computer-based bibliographic retrieval systems."10(p353) Physicians used the research literature "infrequently" and rated it least useful "in terms of credibility, availability, searchability, understandability, and applicability."10(p353) Physicians are more computer oriented today, but even with determined effort, low-dose information is difficult to find, identify, and interpret among the millions of articles in the literature. Abstracts often fail to mention lower doses when studied with higher, manufacturer-recommended doses, and full articles frequently downplay the significance and potential utility of lower-dose formulations that manufacturers do not intend to produce.

The ineffectiveness of articles in the medical literature in altering the prescribing habits of physicians has been demonstrated time after time. More than a decade after the dangers of high-dose oral contraceptives were recognized, physicians continued prescribing these drugs to tens of thousands of women.15 For years, physicians continued writing millions of prescriptions for terfenadine (Seldane) after the drug's cardiac toxicities were reported and an effective substitute, loratadine (Claritin), became available. Surveys16,17 following the publication of new guidelines by the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC) have repeatedly shown not only that most physicians do not adopt the JNC guidelines but also that many who regularly treat hypertension have never heard of the JNC.

CURRENTNESS OF PDR DOSE INFORMATION

Although a new edition of the PDR is published annually, this does not mean that the individual drug descriptions are updated annually. Most are not, but this is not apparent because, unlike package inserts, PDR drug descriptions are not dated. There is no requirement for drug companies to update their package inserts or, therefore, their data in the PDR, which a decade after a drug's approval may still be based solely on the limited prerelease data. Indeed, changes in package inserts must be approved by the FDA and may require manufacturers to conduct new studies, which in turn may discourage them from updating their package inserts. Thus, many phase 4 findings are not reflected in the PDR, and much PDR information is outdated. Some examples include the following.

Estrogens, Conjugated

Estrogens, conjugated (Premarin), was the most prescribed drug in the United States in 1998 (46 759 000 prescriptions filled) and during the past decade.18 Estrogen therapy causes a significant incidence of dose-related ADEs, dropouts are frequent, and estrogens may promote uterine and, possibly, breast cancer. Using the lowest effective dose has long been accepted as fundamental to avoiding ADEs, maintaining patients' quality of life, and maximizing compliance to prevent long-term complications such as osteoporosis and fractures. Postrelease experience quickly led to the acceptance of an initial dose of 0.625 mg/d of estrogens, conjugated, for treating hot flashes and excessive sweating, the symptoms that most often prompt women to seek treatment.1922 Respected drug references12,13 and multiple studies2325 indicate that as little as 0.3 mg/d of estrogens, conjugated, is adequate for many women. In contrast, through 1999, the PDR recommended 1.25 mg/d of estrogens, conjugated, as the initial dose for treating vasomotor menopausal symptoms, a 100% to 400% higher dose than other sources and the same dose recommended 35 years earlier in its 1964 edition.6 In 2000, the PDR recommendation was finally reduced to 0.625 mg/d, which may still be excessive for many women.

Antihypertensive Drugs

Antihypertensive therapy is often complicated by dose-related ADEs that affect quality of life and compliance. Studies26,27 indicate that 16% to 50% of patients prescribed antihypertensive drugs quit treatment within a few years. Meanwhile, significant dose discrepancies exist between the medical literature and the PDR for antihypertensive drugs. For example, for amlodipine besylate (Norvasc), the 14th best-selling drug in the United States in 1998 (with 23 218 000 prescriptions),18 the sixth report of the JNC recommends an initial dose of 2.5 mg/d.28 The PDR recommends 5 mg/d, a dose 100% higher than that of the JNC. Similar dose discrepancies exist for atenolol (Tenormin), hydrochlorothiazide, lisinopril (Prinivil or Zestril), ramipril (Altace), and more than a dozen others.29

Other Medications

The PDR's descriptions of scores of other major medications are similarly lacking in important prerelease and/or postrelease data about effective low doses (Table 1). These include omeprazole, fluoxetine hydrochloride, and atorvastatin calcium, the first, second, and third top-selling drugs, respectively, in 1998.18

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF PDR DATA

The package inserts and PDR descriptions of drugs provide much information, but even at the time of FDA approval this information may not be comprehensive in reflecting prerelease experience with various drug doses. Sometimes, a manufacturer will present clinical data that support its recommended dose while omitting important data about lower effective doses. Various nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) provide examples of these deficiencies.

Although many NSAID write-ups in the PDR explicitly state the importance of using the lowest dose of the NSAID with each patient, the actual low-dose data that would make this most possible are often lacking. This is important because dose-related ADEs from NSAIDs have prompted more reports to the FDA than any other drug group, and most NSAID ADEs are dose related. Annually, 8000 to 16 000 deaths and 70 000 to 107 000 hospitalizations have been related to NSAID use.12,118 Using the truly lowest effective dose required by each patient is key to the safest use of NSAIDs.

Ibuprofen (Motrin)

At least 3 studies65,71,72 before and 6 studies6670,73 after FDA approval demonstrated the effectiveness of just 200 mg of ibuprofen 3 times daily for treating postpartum uterine cramps, dysmenorrhea, postoperative dental pain, and rheumatoid arthritis.6573 In several of the studies,6669 this low dose was as effective as the usual 400-mg dosage given 3 or 4 times daily. None of these data were ever mentioned in the PDR or otherwise made readily available to physicians by the manufacturer. Thus, from ibuprofen's introduction in 1974, physicians have prescribed the 400-mg dose most often, and for many years the lowest available dose was 300 mg.

Diclofenac Sodium (Voltaren)

Diclofenac was the top-selling prescription NSAID from 1982 to 1993 and is still a popular medication. At least 6 studies before41,42,4649 and several studies after4345 FDA approval demonstrated the effectiveness of a dosage of 75 mg/d (25 mg given 3 times daily),4149 as opposed to the PDR's recommendations of 100 to 150 mg/d for osteoarthritis and 150 to 200 mg/d for rheumatoid arthritis. None of these low-dose data have ever been mentioned in the PDR.

Celecoxib (Celebrex)

Similar problems persist with new drugs. The manufacturer-recommended dosage for celecoxib's most widely used indication, osteoarthritis, is 100 mg twice daily for everyone. This one-size-fits-all dose not only forces physicians to go outside of the approved guidelines when patients require dose adjustments but also ignores the significant effectiveness of a 50% lower dose.37 Moreover, because of its indications, celecoxib will be used by many elderly patients in whom the drug increases to 40% higher plasma levels (on average) and exhibits a prolonged half-life.6 Older women (>65 years), who may use celecoxib more than any other population, display an even greater accumulation of celecoxib. Yet, although many other drugs with similar plasma elevations in elderly patients are recommended at lower doses for this population, celecoxib is not. Celecoxib may prove less prone to cause gastrointestinal tract hemorrhage than older NSAIDs, but its tendencies to cause other dose-related ADEs, including renal injury, are no different. The importance of using the lowest dose needed by each patient applies just as much to celecoxib as to other NSAIDs, yet celecoxib's one-size-fits-all dosing for osteoarthritis, the omission of important low-dose data, and the production of celecoxib in only 100- and 200-mg capsules limit physicians' ability to adjust celecoxib doses according to the differing tolerances and needs of individual patients.

COMMENT

"The most common therapeutic intervention in medicine is writing a prescription."8(p2029) The ramifications of inadequate dosing information affect all members of the medical community: patients, physicians, pharmaceutical companies, and private and public insurers. No one benefits when up to 50% of patients prescribed antihypertensive drugs26,27 and 35% to 75% of those prescribed cholesterol-lowering drugs quit treatment.119,120 No one gains when most women who require hormone replacement therapy to prevent osteoporosis either quit treatment or are afraid to initiate it.121

All aspects of the medical community suffer when tens of millions of people no longer trust FDA-approved medications and instead turn to unproved, unregulated, imprecisely produced alternative remedies. Patients and physicians lose when the physician-patient relationship is eroded. No one benefits and trust is shaken when, for example, an effective and extremely successful drug like terfenadine is withdrawn because of dose-related toxicities122 that might have been avoided or corrected by the use of a substantially lower dose that had been proved effective in prerelease studies.123,124

The Need for In-Depth Study of ADEs

Although the importance of dose-related ADEs is recognized, better definition of their aspects is needed to facilitate appropriate remedies. Do many dose-related ADEs occur with initial doses? Some drugs are well known to cause first-dose phenomena, and ADEs with other drugs commonly occur early in treatment. The solution for these problems would be to define and produce the lowest effective doses of medications, thereby facilitating their use in a wide range of clinical situations: (1) with medications that are known to cause a high incidence of ADEs and/or dropouts at the usual doses (eg, antihypertensive and antidepressant agents); (2) in nonimmediate situations in which dose titration is easily accomplished or in which ADEs may cause compliance problems; (3) in initiating treatment with patients known to be slow metabolizers, who have histories of medication intolerances at usual doses, or who are otherwise considered high risk; and (4) in initiating treatment with elderly patients, especially the very old (≥80 years) or frail or other elderly patients with multiple disorders and/or who are taking other medications.

In short, the ready accessibility of complete dose-response information would allow physicians to consider starting with a clearly defined, lowest effective dose of a drug in any therapeutic situation that is not immediate or severe. After all, if a low initial dose is not sufficiently effective for a patient, it can easily be increased.

Similarly, studies should also be undertaken on whether many ADEs occur with escalating doses. If so, one solution would be to provide better, more gradual dose-escalation regimens that do not routinely require 100% increases in medication, which are large jumps pharmacologically, yet commonplace in medication therapy.

Technically, efficacy and tolerability may be separate variables of drug dynamics, but clinically, there is no opportunity to test these factors separately. Ultimately, it comes down to choosing a specific dose and testing its effect in a patient for efficacy and tolerability. Thus, each new prescription or dose adjustment is an "N of 1" experiment of its own. It is a safe assumption that, in general, a lower effective dose is likely to be better tolerated than a higher one. Therefore, complete information about dose-response and the lowest effective doses is essential for physicians and patients.

Expediting the Flow of Current and Complete Information to Physicians

Even if the origins of dose-related ADEs become better defined and the lowest effective doses are determined, informing physicians of this information would remain a challenge. Despite its popularity, the PDR has never conformed to the requirements of any true drug reference. The PDR was originally developed as a promotional device, not as a source of current and comprehensive drug information.

If the PDR were a minor drug reference used infrequently by physicians, its deficiencies might be unimportant. However, the PDR is the leading drug reference among physicians. The availability of the PDR on many hospital floors makes it a common resource for residents and interns. Nurses and other health professionals also rely heavily on the PDR. In addition, the PDR is an important drug reference for consumers, who buy more than half a million PDRs each year (Medical Economics Company, written communication, September 23, 1999),9 and it is the basis for much information in other professional and consumer drug references. Yet, many health professionals and consumers are not aware of the deficiencies of the PDR and that its recommendations may in fact lead to suboptimal care.

Questioning whether the PDR should be our leading reference may be worth discussion, but for now the PDR is our leading reference, and it likely will remain so in the future. Hopes that new online systems will somehow remedy these problems have not been fulfilled so far—and these systems are just as likely to rely on incomplete package insert or PDR data as other drug references have in the past. The fact is, no standard, readily available drug reference consistently offers complete prerelease and postrelease drug information for physicians' use.

Solutions to this problem are easy to conceive, but difficult to implement. Solutions might include (1) an improved PDR containing current, complete drug information, thereby warranting its standing among physicians and consumers; (2) the adaptation of another current drug reference with comprehensive dose-response information that is made readily accessible to physicians and consumers; and (3) an entirely new reference, perhaps created from the joint contributions of physicians and their organizations, foundations, the pharmaceutical industry, and the government.

Many obstacles, especially funding problems, stand in the way. However, a reliable, comprehensive resource of drug information would be cost-effective if it facilitated improved therapeutics that minimized risks, reduced ADEs, improved compliance, and reduced the long-term consequences and costs of untreated disorders. Undoubtedly, a readily accessible, complete drug resource would become a fixture on bookshelves and computer screens. From habit, users would be able to locate information quickly and to rely on it with confidence. Links to MEDLINE and other catalogs would expedite in-depth study of any area of interest. Most important of all, the possession of complete dose-response information would also permit physicians to fulfill a primary principle of pharmacotherapy: using the least amount of medication necessary for each patient and, thereby, minimizing the risk of doing harm—the cornerstones of high-quality, preventive, ethical medical care.

Accepted for publication November 27, 2000.

Corresponding author and reprints: Jay S. Cohen, MD, 2658 Del Mar Heights Rd, Box 120, Del Mar, CA 92014 (e-mail: jacohen@uscd.edu).

References
1.
Lazarou  JPomeranz  BHCorey  PN Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA. 1998;2791200- 1205Article
2.
Bates  DW Drugs and adverse drug reactions: how worried should we be? JAMA. 1998;2791216- 1217Article
3.
Clark  WGBrater  DCJohnson  AR Pharmacogenetics: the individual response to drugs. Goth's Medical Pharmacology. 12th ed. St Louis, Mo CV Mosby Co1988;48
4.
Melmon  KLMorrelli  HFHoffman  BBNierenberg  DW Melmon and Morrelli's Clinical Pharmacology: Basic Principles in Therapeutics. 3rd ed. New York, NY McGraw-Hill Co1993;
5.
Faich  GA Adverse-drug-reaction reporting. N Engl J Med. 1986;3141589- 1592Article
6.
Not Available, Physicians' Desk Reference. 53rd ed. Montvale, NJ Medical Economics Co1999;
7.
Peck  CCBarr  WHBenet  LZ  et al.  Opportunities for integration of pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and toxicokinetics in rational drug development. J Clin Pharmacol. 1994;34111- 119Article
8.
Ray  WAGriffin  MRAvorn  J Evaluating drugs after their approval for clinical use. N Engl J Med. 1993;3292029- 2032Article
9.
Cohen  JSInsel  PA The Physicians' Desk Reference: problems and possible improvements. Arch Intern Med. 1996;1561375- 1380Article
10.
Connelly  DPRich  ECCurley  SPKelly  JT Knowledge resource preferences of family physicians. J Fam Pract. 1990;30353- 359
11.
Ely  JWBurch  RJVinson  DC The information needs of family physicians: case-specific clinical questions. J Fam Pract. 1992;35265- 269
12.
American Medical Association, AMA Drug Evaluations.  Chicago, Ill American Medical Association1996;
13.
McEvoy  GK American Hospital Formulary Service, Drug Information 1999.  Bethesda, Md American Society of Health-System Pharmacists1999;
14.
Not Available, Drug Facts and Comparisons.  St Louis, Mo Facts & Comparisons, Inc1996;
15.
Marks  L "Not just a statistic": the history of USA and UK policy over thrombotic disease and the oral contraceptive pill, 1960s-1970s. Soc Sci Med. 1999;491139- 1155Article
16.
Lenfant  CJoint National Commission on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure, JNC guidelines: is the message getting through? JAMA. 1997;2781778- 1779Article
17.
Siegel  DLopez  J Trends in antihypertensive drug use in the United States: do the JNC V recommendations affect prescribing? JAMA. 1997;2781745- 1748Article
18.
Buckley  B 34th annual top 200 drug issue. Pharmacy Times. 1999;6516- 22
19.
Not Available, Estrogen-progestin combinations for postmenopausal use. Med Lett Drugs Ther. 1995;3753- 54
20.
Greendale  GAReboussin  BAHogan  P  et al.  Symptom relief and side effects of postmenopausal hormones: results from the Postmenopausal Estrogen/Progestin Interventions trial. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;92982- 988Article
21.
Lobo  RAPickar  JHWild  RAWalsh  BHirvonen  EMenopause Study Group, Metabolic impact of adding medroxyprogesterone acetate to conjugated estrogen therapy in postmenopausal women. Obstet Gynecol. 1994;84987- 995
22.
Corson  SL A practical guide to prescribing estrogen replacement therapy. Int J Fertil Menopausal Stud. 1995;40229- 247
23.
Ettinger  B Personal perspective on low-dosage estrogen therapy for postmenopausal women. Menopause. 1999;6273- 276Article
24.
Recker  RRDavies  KMDowd  RMHeaney  RP The effect of low-dose continuous estrogen and progesterone therapy with calcium and vitamin D on bone in elderly women: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130897- 904Article
25.
Genant  HKLucas  JWeiss  S  et al.  Prevention of postmenopausal bone loss with minimal uterine bleeding using low dose continuous estrogen/progestin therapy: a 2-year prospective study. Maturitas. 1997;2769- 76Article
26.
Feldman  RBacher  MCampbell  NDrover  AChockalingam  A Adherence to pharmacologic management of hypertension. Can J Public Health. 1998;89I16- I18
27.
Sanson-Fisher  RWClover  K Compliance in the treatment of hypertension: a need for action. Am J Hypertens. 1995;8 ((pt 2)) 82S- 88SArticle
28.
Not Available, The sixth report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Arch Intern Med. 1997;1572413- 2446Article
29.
Cohen  JS Adverse drug effects, compliance, and initial doses of antihypertensive drugs recommended by the Joint National Committee vs the Physicians' Desk ReferenceArch Intern Med. 2001;161880- 885Article
30.
McQuay  HJCarroll  DGlynn  CJ Dose-response for analgesic effect of amitriptyline in chronic pain. Anaesthesia. 1993;48281- 285Article
31.
Roy  DDawling  S Application of an individually predicted dosage of amitriptyline to the treatment of depression. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 1987;2307- 315Article
32.
Nawrocki  JWWeiss  SRDavidson  MH  et al.  Reduction of LDL cholesterol by 25% to 60% in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia by atorvastatin, a new HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 1995;15678- 682Article
33.
Cilla Jr  DDWhitfield  LRGibson  DMSedman  AJPosvar  EL Multiple-dose pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of atorvastatin, an inhibitor of HMG-CoA reductase, in healthy subjects. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1996;60687- 695Article
34.
Elliott  RLShillcutt  SD Using newer antidepressants in the medically ill: an update. Primary Psychiatry. 1996;342- 56
35.
Kirksey  DFHarto-Truax  N Private practice evaluation of the safety and efficacy of bupropion in depressed outpatients. J Clin Psychiatry. 1983;44(pt 2)143- 147
36.
Stern  WCHarto-Truax  NBauer  N Efficacy of bupropion in tricyclic-resistant or intolerant patients. J Clin Psychiatry. 1983;44(pt 2)148- 152
37.
Bensen  WGFiechtner  JJMcMillen  JI  et al.  Treatment of osteoarthritis with celecoxib, a cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor: a randomized controlled trial. Mayo Clin Proc. 1999;741095- 1105Article
38.
Davignon  JHanefeld  MNakaya  NHunninghake  DBInsull Jr  WOse  L Clinical efficacy and safety of cerivastatin: summary of pivotal phase IIb/III studies. Am J Cardiol. 1998;82 ((4B)) 32J- 39JArticle
39.
Betteridge  DJInternational Cerivastatin Study Group, International multicentre comparison of cerivastatin with placebo and simvastatin for the treatment of patients with primary hypercholesterolaemia. Int J Clin Pract. 1999;53243- 250
40.
Young  MDFrank  WODickson  BDPeace  KPBraverman  AMounce  W Determining the optimal dosage regimen for H2-receptor antagonist therapy: a dose validation approach. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 1989;347- 57Article
41.
Ingemanson  CACarrington  BSikstrom  BBjorkman  R Diclofenac in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhoea. Curr Ther Res. 1981;30632- 639
42.
Duerrigl  TVitaus  MPucar  IMiko  M Diclofenac sodium (Voltaren): results of a multi-centre comparative trial in adult-onset rheumatoid arthritis. J Int Med Res. 1975;3139- 144
43.
Kantor  TG Use of diclofenac in analgesia. Am J Med. 1986;8064- 69Article
44.
Kuhlwein  AMeyer  HJKoehler  CO Reduced diclofenac administration by B vitamins: results of a randomized double-blind study with reduced daily doses of diclofenac (75 mg diclofenac versus 75 mg diclofenac plus B vitamins) in acute lumbar vertebral syndromes [in German]. Klin Wochenschr. 1990;68107- 115Article
45.
Machtey  I Diclofenac in the treatment of painful joints and traumatic tendinitis (including strains and sprains): a brief review. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 1985;15(suppl 1)87- 92Article
46.
Mutru  OPenttila  MPesonen  JSalmela  PSuhonen  OSonck  T Diclofenac sodium (Voltaren) and indomethacin in the ambulatory treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a double-blind multicentre study. Scand J Rheumatol Suppl. 1978;(22)51- 56Article
47.
Siegmeth  WPlacheta  P Long-term comparative study: diclofenac (Voltaren) and naproxen (Proxen) in arthritis [in German]. Schweiz Med Wochenschr. 1978;108349- 353
48.
Ciccolunghi  SNChaudri  HASchubiger  BIReddrop  R Report on a long-term tolerability study of up to two years with diclofenac sodium (Voltaren). Scand J Rheumatol. 1978;(22)86- 96Article
49.
Ciccolunghi  SNChaudri  HASchubiger  BI The value and results of long-term studies with diclofenac sodium (Voltarol). Rheumatol Rehabil. 1979;Suppl 2100- 115
50.
McCue  R Using tricyclic antidepressants in the elderly. Clin Geriatr Med. 1992;8323- 334
51.
Ray  WPurushottam  BTShorr  RI Medications and the older driver. Clin Geriatr Med. 1993;9413- 432
52.
Savarino  VMela  GSZentilin  P  et al.  Low bedtime doses of H2-receptor antagonists for acute treatment of duodenal ulcers. Dig Dis Sci. 1989;341043- 1046Article
53.
Fiorucci  SClausi  GGCascetta  RFarinelli  MFPelli  MAMorelli  A Effects of low and high doses of famotidine and ranitidine on nocturnal gastric pH. Dig Dis Sci. 1986;31(suppl 10)393S
54.
Tinkelman  DFalliers  MBronsky  E  et al.  Efficacy and safety of fexofenadine in fall seasonal allergic rhinitis [abstract]. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1996;971009Article
55.
Wernicke  JFDunlop  SRDornseif  BEBosomworth  JCHumbert  M Low-dose fluoxetine therapy for depression. Psychopharmacol Bull. 1988;24183- 188
56.
Louie  AKLewis  TBLannon  MD Use of low-dose fluoxetine in major depression and panic disorder. J Clin Psychiatry. 1993;54435- 438
57.
Salzman  C Practical considerations in the pharmacologic treatment of depression and anxiety in the elderly. J Clin Psychiatry. 1990;51(suppl)40- 43
58.
Schatzberg  AF Dosing strategies for antidepressant agents. J Clin Psychiatry. 1991;52(suppl)14- 20
59.
Sheehan  DVHartnett-Sheehan  K The role of SSRIs in panic disorder. J Clin Psychiatry. 1996;57Suppl 1051- 58
60.
Stewart  JWQuitkin  FMKlein  DF The pharmacotherapy of minor depression. Am J Psychother. 1992;4623- 36
61.
Cain  JW Poor response to fluoxetine: underlying depression, serotonergic overstimulation, or a "therapeutic window"? J Clin Psychiatry. 1992;53272- 277
62.
Jick  H Evaluation of drug efficacy by a preference technic. N Engl J Med. 1966;2751399- 1403Article
63.
Jick  HSlone  DDinan  BMuench  H Comparative studies with a hypnotic (RO 5-6901) under current investigation. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 1967;9355- 357
64.
Kales  ABixler  EOScharf  MKales  JD Sleep laboratory studies of flurazepam: a model for evaluating hypnotic drugs. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1976;19576- 583
65.
Thompson  MBell  D Further experience with ibuprofen in the treatment of arthritis. Rheumatol Phys Med. 1970;10Suppl 10100- 103
66.
Bloomfield  SSMitchell  JBichlmeir  GBarden  TP Low dose ibuprofen and aspirin analgesia for postpartum uterine cramps [abstract]. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1983;33194
67.
Helzner  ECFricke  JCunningham  BG An evaluation of ibuprofen 200mg, ibuprofen 400mg and naproxen 200mg and 400mg in postoperative oral surgery pain [abstract]. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1992;51122
68.
Cooper  SA The relative efficacy of ibuprofen in dental pain. Compendium Continuing Educ Dent. 1987;8578- 597
69.
Cooper  SA Five studies on ibuprofen for postsurgical dental pain. Am J Med. 1984;7770- 77Article
70.
Shapiro  SSDiem  K The effects of ibuprofen in the treatment of dysmenorrhea. Curr Ther Res. 1981;30327- 334
71.
Chalmers  TM Clinical experience with ibuprofen in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 1969;28513- 517Article
72.
Brooks  CDSchmid  FRBiundo  J  et al.  Ibuprofen and aspirin in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a cooperative double-blind trial. Rheumatol Phys Med. 1970;10(suppl 10)48- 63Article
73.
Brune  K The pharmacological profile of non-opioid (OTC) analgesics: aspirin, paracetamol (acetaminophen), ibuprofen, and phenazones. Agents Actions Suppl. 1988;259- 19
74.
Sindrup  SHBrosen  KGram  LF Nonlinear kinetics of imipramine in low and medium plasma level ranges. Ther Drug Monit. 1990;12445- 449Article
75.
Jobson  KLinnoila  MGillam  JSullivan  JL Successful treatment of severe anxiety attacks with tricyclic antidepressants: a potential mechanism of action. Am J Psychiatry. 1978;135863- 864
76.
Lydiard  RBBallenger  JC Antidepressants in panic disorder and agoraphobia. J Affect Disord. 1987;13153- 168Article
77.
Zitrin  CMKlein  DFWoerner  MG Behavior therapy, supportive psychotherapy, imipramine, and phobias. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1978;35307- 316Article
78.
Preskorn  S Pharmacokinetics of antidepressants: why and how they are relevant to treatment. J Clin Psychiatry. 1993;54(suppl)14- 34
79.
Rubinstein  ALurie  YGroskop  IWeintrob  M Cholesterol-lowering effects of a 10 mg daily dose of lovastatin in patients with initial cholesterol levels 200 to 240 mg/dL (5.18 to 6.21 mmol/liter). Am J Cardiol. 1991;681123- 1126Article
80.
Arca  MVega  GLGrundy  SM Hypercholesterolemia in postmenopausal women: metabolic defects and response to low-dose lovastatin. JAMA. 1994;271453- 459Article
81.
Cohen  MMClark  LArmstrong  LD'Souza  J Reduction of aspirin-induced fecal blood loss with low-dose misoprostol tablets in man. Dig Dis Sci. 1985;30605- 611Article
82.
Dajani  EZNissen  CH Gastrointestinal cytoprotective effects of misoprostol: clinical efficacy overview. Dig Dis Sci. 1985;30(suppl)194S- 200SArticle
83.
Lanza  FLFakouhi  DRubin  A  et al.  A double-blind placebo-controlled comparison of the efficacy and safety of 50, 100, and 200 micrograms of misoprostol QID in the prevention of ibuprofen-induced gastric and duodenal mucosal lesions and symptoms. Am J Gastroenterol. 1989;84633- 636
84.
Jiranek  GCKimmey  MBSaunders  DRWillson  RAShanahan  WSilverstein  FE Misoprostol reduces gastroduodenal injury from one week of aspirin: an endoscopic study. Gastroenterology. 1989;96(pt 2 suppl)656- 661
85.
Fontaine  ROntiveros  AElie  R  et al.  A double-blind comparison of nefazodone, imipramine, and placebo in major depression. J Clin Psychiatry. 1994;55234- 241
86.
Freeman  EWRickels  KSondheimer  SJDenis  APfeifer  SWeil  S Nefazodone in the treatment of premenstrual syndrome: a preliminary study. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 1994;14180- 186Article
87.
Rickels  KSchweizer  EClary  CFox  IWeise  C Nefazodone and imipramine in major depression: a placebo-controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry. 1994;164802- 805Article
88.
Sussman  NStimmel  G New dosing strategies for psychotropic drugs. Primary Psychiatry. 1997;424- 30
89.
Cloud  MLOffen  WWMatsumoto  C Healing and subsequent recurrence of duodenal ulcer in a clinical trial comparing nizatidine 300-mg and 100-mg evening doses and placebo in the treatment of active duodenal ulcer. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 1989;45359- 367
90.
Dyck  WPCloud  MLOffen  WWMatsumoto  CChernish  SM Treatment of duodenal ulcers in the United States. Scand J Gastroenterol. 1987;22(suppl 136)47- 55Article
91.
Samanta  ANahass  DHabba  S Efficacy of nizatidine: a new H2 receptor antagonist in the treatment of duodenal ulcer: a dose response study [abstract]. Am J Gastroenterol. 1986;81852
92.
Sjoqvist  FBertilsson  L Clinical pharmacology of antidepressant drugs: pharmacogenetics. Adv Biochem Psychopharmacol. 1984;39359- 372
93.
Behounek  BDMcGovern  MEKassler-Taub  KBMarkowitz  JSBergman  MPravastatin Multinational Study Group for Diabetes, A multinational study of the effects of low-dose pravastatin in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus and hypercholesterolemia. Clin Cardiol. 1994;17558- 562Article
94.
Jones  PHFarmer  JACressman  MD  et al.  Once-daily pravastatin in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia: a dose-response study. Clin Cardiol. 1991;14146- 151Article
95.
Lauritsen  KAndersen  BNHavelund  TLaursen  LSHansen  J Effect of 10 mg and 20 mg omeprazole daily on duodenal ulcer: double-blind comparative trial. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 1989;359- 67Article
96.
Lauritsen  KAndersen  BNLaursen  LSHansen  JHavelund  T Omeprazole 20 mg three days a week and 10 mg daily in prevention of duodenal ulcer relapse: double-blind comparative trial. Gastroenterology. 1991;100663- 669
97.
Beck  TMCiociola  AAJones  SE  et al.  Efficacy of oral ondansetron in the prevention of emesis in outpatients receiving cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118407- 413Article
98.
Beck  TM Efficacy of ondansetron tablets in the management of chemotherapy-induced emesis: review of clinical trials. Semin Oncol. 1992;19(suppl 15)20- 25
99.
Cubeddu  LXPendergrass  KRyan  T  et al.  Efficacy of oral ondansetron, a selective antagonist of 5-HT3 receptors, in the treatment of nausea and vomiting associated with cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapies. Am J Clin Oncol. 1994;17137- 146Article
100.
Berstad  AKett  KAadland  E  et al.  Treatment of duodenal ulcer with ranitidine, a new histamine H2-receptor antagonist. Scand J Gastroenterol. 1980;15637- 639Article
101.
Dobrilla  GBarbara  LBianchi-Porro  G  et al.  Placebo controlled studies with ranitidine in duodenal ulcer. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl. 1981;69(suppl)101- 105
102.
Dobrilla  Gde Pretis  GFelder  MChilovi  F Endoscopic double-blind controlled trial of ranitidine vs placebo in the short-term treatment of duodenal ulcer. Hepatogastroenterology. 1981;2849- 52
103.
Langman  JSHenry  DAOgilvie  A Ranitidine and cimetidine for duodenal ulcer. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl. 1981;69(suppl)115- 117
104.
Zinner  SH Panic attacks precipitated by sertraline. Am J Psychiatry. 1994;151147- 148
105.
Saku  KSasaki  JArakawa  K Low-dose effect of simvastatin on serum lipids, lipoproteins, and apolipoproteins in patients with hypercholesterolemia. Clin Ther. 1989;11247- 257
106.
Steinhagen-Thiessen  ESimvastatin Pravastatin European Study Group, Comparative efficacy and tolerability of 5 and 10 mg simvastatin and 10 mg pravastatin in moderate primary hypercholesterolemia. Cardiology. 1994;85244- 254Article
107.
Tuomilehto  JGuimaraes  ACKettner  H  et al.  Dose-response of simvastatin in primary hypercholesterolemia. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 1994;24941- 949Article
108.
Walker  JFTobert  JA The clinical efficacy of lovastatin and MK-733 (simvastatin): an overview. Eur Heart J. 1987;8(suppl E)93- 96Article
109.
Yoshida  HIshikawa  TAyaori  M  et al.  Effect of low-dose simvastatin on cholesterol levels, oxidative susceptibility, and antioxidant levels of low-density lipoproteins in patients with hypercholesterolemia: a pilot study. Clin Ther. 1995;17379- 389Article
110.
Yoshino  GKazumi  TMatsushita  M  et al.  Comparison of the effects of pravastatin and simvastatin in hypercholesterolemic subjects. Curr Ther Res. 1990;48259- 267
111.
Bryant  SGHokanson  JABrown  CS A drug utilization review of prescribing patterns for trazodone vs. amitriptyline. J Clin Psychiatry. 1990;51(suppl)27- 29
112.
Maletta  GMattox  KMDysken  M Guidelines for prescribing psychoactive drugs in the elderly: part 1. Geriatrics. 1991;4640- 47
113.
Schatzberg  AFDessain  EO'Neil  PKatz  DLCole  JO Recent studies on selective serotonergic antidepressants: trazodone, fluoxetine, and fluvoxamine. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 1987;7(suppl 6)44S- 49SArticle
114.
Mendels  JJohnston  RMattes  JRiesenberg  R Efficacy and safety of b.i.d. doses of venlafaxine in a dose-response study. Psychopharmacol Bull. 1993;29169- 174
115.
Geracioti Jr  TD Venlafaxine treatment of panic disorder: a case series. J Clin Psychiatry. 1995;56408- 410
116.
Jackson  JLouwerens  JCnossen  FDe Jong  H Testing the effects of the imidazopyridine zolpidem on memory: an ecologically valid approach. Hum Psychopharmacol. 1992;7325- 330Article
117.
Merlotti  LRoehrs  TKoshorek  GZorick  FLamphere  JRoth  T The dose effects of zolpidem on the sleep of healthy normals. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 1989;99- 14Article
118.
Wolfe  MMLichtenstein  DRSingh  G Gastrointestinal toxicity of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. N Engl J Med. 1999;3401888- 1899Article
119.
Avorn  JMonette  JLacour  A  et al.  Persistence of use of lipid-lowering medications: a cross-national study. JAMA. 1998;2791458- 1462Article
120.
Roberts  WC The underused miracle drugs: the statin drugs are to atherosclerosis what penicillin was to infectious disease. Am J Cardiol. 1996;78377- 378Article
121.
Cauley  JACummings  SRBlack  DMMascioli  SRSeeley  DG Prevalence and determinants of estrogen replacement therapy in elderly women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1990;163(pt 1)1438- 1444Article
122.
Woosley  RLChen  YFreiman  JPGillis  RA Mechanism of the cardiotoxic actions of terfenadine. JAMA. 1993;2691532- 1536Article
123.
Brandon  MLWeiner  M Clinical investigation of terfenadine, a non-sedating antihistamine. Ann Allergy. 1980;4471- 75
124.
Brandon  MLWeiner  M Clinical studies of terfenadine in seasonal allergic rhinitis. Arzneimittelforschung. 1982;321204- 1205
×