ArticleDrug design, development and therapy2025
Therapeutic Drug Monitoring for Individualized Antidepressant Treatment.
Article in Drug design, development and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fabrication and efficacy evaluation of scopolamine-loaded dissolving microneedle for rapid antidepressant therapy.International journal of pharmaceutics: X · 2026Article
- Novel anxiolytic-antidepressant combinations TF-1 and TF-2 and their intervention mechanisms in a mouse model of comorbid anxiety and depression (CAD).Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to establish a UPLC-MS/MS method for the simultaneous quantification of five antidepressants: venlafaxine (VEN) and its metabolite O-desmethylvenlafaxine (ODV), mirtazapine (MIR), sertraline (SER), escitalopram (ESC), and vortioxetine (VTX) in human plasma and saliva. By analyzing real-world therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) data, this study aimed to identify key factors influencing drug concentrations thereby optimizing personalized treatment strategies for patients with depression and advancing precision medicine. Methods: Following liquid-liquid extraction for plasma and protein precipitation for saliva, analyte concentrations were determined using a fully validated UPLC-MS/MS method. Validation included assessments of selectivity, linearity, accuracy, precision, extraction recovery, matrix effects, stability, and dilution integrity. The established method was applied to clinical samples, with further investigation into how clinical factors, including age, BMI, renal function (as measured by GFR), total protein (TP), albumin levels, and concomitant medications, influenced the concentration-to-dose ratio (CDR). Results: The method demonstrated excellent linearity (5-500 ng/mL) with all validation parameters meeting acceptance criteria. The established method was successfully applied to analyze 566 plasma and 39 saliva samples. TDM revealed significant variations in target attainment rates among different antidepressants, along with varying degrees of dose-concentration correlations. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that the CDR of VEN + ODV was primarily influenced by age and GFR, while the CDR of MIR showed a significant association with BMI. The CDR of SER was affected by both BMI and TP levels. The CDR of ESC was modulated by age, concomitant medications, and renal function. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that TDM-based individualized medication strategies can support the optimization of antidepressant efficacy. Saliva monitoring requires further validation. Clinicians should adopt dynamic, patient-specific monitoring to enhance precision medicine outcomes in depression management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.