Every one of the 25 topics is backed by the assigned chapters, which the reader has pasted in full for chapters 1–4 and 6–10. Where a card uses her slides or the webinar it says so.
The percentage is how much has been LOOKED UP, not how much is correct. To check a single card, open its badge — it names the chapter or slide behind that card.
Definitions, the two components, the schedule I exception, the state-versus-federal split and the PA caveat are all the book's. She makes the same practice-versus-prescriptive distinction in the week 1 webinar at [09:33] and adds that which DEA schedules you may prescribe depends on your registration.
Check it yourself: open Lehne's Pharmacotherapeutics 3rd ed. ch 1–10 and look up this topic. If it disagrees with the card, that is worth reporting — the textbook wins over the guide.
Two different permissions get mixed up. Practice authority is whether you need a doctor supervising you at all. Prescriptive authority is which medicines you are allowed to write for.
Your state decides both — and each state hands the job to a different board: nursing, medicine, or pharmacy. The federal government controls the drugs themselves rather than your licence, with one important exception: prescribing controlled drugs also needs a federal DEA registration, and which schedules you may write for depends on it.
"Independently" means nobody has to sign off on your prescriptions.
"Without limitation" means you can prescribe anything, including controlled drugs — except schedule I, which has no medical use at all.
Having both is called full prescriptive authority.
PAs are a special case: they always have to be attached to a physician. If that arrangement ends, they cannot prescribe until they find another one.
The legal right to prescribe — and it is set by your STATE, not by the federal government.
Two separate things people confuse:
Practice authority
Prescriptive authority
What it governs
Whether you can practise without physician oversight
Which drugs you may legally prescribe
Set by
State law
State law + DEA registration for controlled drugs
Prescriptive authority itself has two components:
Independently — no rule requiring physician supervision or collaboration.
Without limitation — any drug including controlled drugs, EXCEPT schedule I, which has no accepted medical use.
Full prescriptive authority means both. Physicians have it. For non-physician providers it varies by state, and limits are usually tied to MD/DO oversight.
The federal government controls DRUG regulation but has no control over prescriptive authority — that is state jurisdiction, under a State Board of Nursing, Medicine or Pharmacy depending on the state.
PAs are the exception worth knowing: they must maintain a physician relationship to practise and prescribe at all, so even a solo PA does not have the legal right to prescribe without that arrangement.
Sources for this card
✓TextbookLehne ch01 §What is prescriptive authority?
Defines the term, splits it into prescribing independently and prescribing without limitation, excepts schedule I, and sets out why PAs need a physician arrangement.
The ink rule, the legibility rule and the three named dangerous abbreviations are the book's, from Ch. 2. The rational-selection sequence, the off-label definition and the 50%/80% adherence figure are the course module's own summary, which cites Luu et al. (2021) for the adherence number.
Check it yourself: open Lehne's Pharmacotherapeutics 3rd ed. ch 1–10 and look up this topic. If it disagrees with the card, that is worth reporting — the textbook wins over the guide.
Handing someone a medication and deciding they should have it are two different jobs. Prescribing means you own the diagnosis, the choice of drug, and checking whether it worked.
Pick the drug in this order: work out what is wrong, choose the best drug for this person, then follow up and adjust.
Write in pen. Never anything that can be rubbed out.
Make sure your own name and number can actually be read.
Do not use U for units, MSO4 for morphine, or QD for daily — these three get misread and cause real harm.
"Off-label" means using a drug in a way the FDA never approved — a different illness, dose, route or age group. It is allowed, but it is your decision to defend.
About half of people do not take their medicines the way they were told to. That is worth remembering before you assume a drug has failed.
The exact measure is worth knowing: only about half of people in developed countries take their medicines as directed 80% of the time or more.
The required elements of a valid prescription have not changed in centuries — precision is the whole job.
Giving medications and PRESCRIBING them are different responsibilities. Prescribing carries the diagnosis, the drug choice and the monitoring plan with it.
Rational drug selection, in order:
Formulate a diagnosis from clinical reasoning.
Select the most appropriate drug for THIS client.
Monitor the response and adjust.
On the script itself:
Write in ink or indelible pencil — never anything erasable.
Your name and contact details must be legible, especially on a generic or shared script pad.
Avoid the dangerous abbreviations: U for units, MSO4 for morphine, QD for daily. They are no longer acceptable because they cause errors.
Off-label prescribing = a use, dose, route or population the FDA has not approved. It is legal and common, but it is a deliberate decision you own.
Adherence is the quiet failure point: only about 50% of clients in developed countries take their medication as prescribed 80% or more of the time.
Sources for this card
✓TextbookLehne ch02 §Responsibility of prescribing
Separates giving a medication from prescribing one, and frames prescribing as a privilege carrying real responsibility.
✓TextbookLehne ch02 §Written
Gives the mechanics of a written script — ink, legible prescriber details — and names U, MSO4 and QD as abbreviations to avoid.
◆Slideswk1 s2
Lists documentation as both a legal and a clinical responsibility.
▣Course modulemodule wk1 §Prescription Writing
Defines rational drug selection and off-label prescribing, and carries the adherence statistic.
Open one and check this card against it. If it disagrees, that is worth reporting.
Prescribing considerations
Topic 3 of 67✓textbook
✓textbook
Someone read the assigned chapter and confirmed this card against it.
The documentation checklist, the family/self prohibition, the grapefruit advice, the empty-stomach window, the new-drug suspicion, MedWatch and the body-size point are all Lehne's, from Ch. 2, 4 and 6.
Check it yourself: open Lehne's Pharmacotherapeutics 3rd ed. ch 1–10 and look up this topic. If it disagrees with the card, that is worth reporting — the textbook wins over the guide.
Most of this is about being careful on purpose, and leaving a record that you were.
Only prescribe for people who are actually your patients, with notes to prove it.
Never for yourself, your family, or your friends.
Write down what you examined, what you warned them about, and how you plan to check on them.
If you asked another clinician, write that down too.
Grapefruit juice interferes with a lot of drugs, so unless you know it is harmless here, tell people to skip it.
Whether a drug goes with food or on an empty stomach is part of the prescription, not an afterthought. Empty stomach means an hour before eating or two hours after.
If someone starts a brand-new drug and then feels strange, believe them — even if no one has written that side effect down yet. Report it to MedWatch. That is how new side effects get discovered.
The same dose goes further in a smaller body. Ignoring size means too much drug for a small person and too little for a large one.
Be prudent and deliberate, and write down that you were.
The safety checklist the book gives, almost verbatim:
Have a documented provider–patient relationship with the person you are prescribing for.
Do not prescribe for family, friends, or yourself.
Document a thorough history and physical.
Document what you told the patient about risks, side effects and options.
Have a documented monitoring or titration plan.
Note it when you consult another provider.
Around the drug itself:
Grapefruit juice — unless the effect is known and wanted, advise avoiding it entirely.
Timing with meals is a prescribing decision. Food decreases absorption of some drugs (give on an empty stomach: 1 hour before or 2 hours after a meal) and increases it for others (give with food).
New drugs deserve suspicion. If a patient develops new symptoms on a recently released drug, suspect the drug — even if the literature does not describe it.
Report suspected adverse reactions to MedWatch even without proof. Voluntary reporting by clinicians is how unknown reactions come to light in the first place.
And size matters: the same dose reaches a higher concentration in a smaller person. Prescribing by rote under-treats the large patient and poisons the small one.
Sources for this card
✓TextbookLehne ch02 §Responsibility of prescribing
Gives the documentation checklist and the rule against prescribing for family, friends or oneself.
✓TextbookLehne ch04 §Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and drug interactions
Covers grapefruit juice, the with-food/empty-stomach decision and its timing, suspicion of new drugs, and MedWatch reporting.
✓TextbookLehne ch06 §Individual variation in drug responses
Explains why body size changes the concentration a given dose achieves.
▣Course modulemodule wk1 §Prescription Writing
Frames ethical prescribing as informed decision-making across interactions, side effects and client-specific need.
Open one and check this card against it. If it disagrees, that is worth reporting.
Medication education
Topic 4 of 67✓textbook
✓textbook
Someone read the assigned chapter and confirmed this card against it.
The nine teaching components are Ch. 3's list verbatim in order. The reconciliation steps and the 50%/85% technology figures are Ch. 4's.
Check it yourself: open Lehne's Pharmacotherapeutics 3rd ed. ch 1–10 and look up this topic. If it disagrees with the card, that is worth reporting — the textbook wins over the guide.
Teaching someone about their medicine does more for whether they take it than anything else you do. It also clears up the things they heard somewhere that would have stopped them.
For any new drug, cover all nine: what it is called, what it is for, how much and how often, how to take it, what side effects to expect, how to store it, what blood tests go with it, what food or drugs to avoid, and how long they will be on it.
Medication reconciliation means comparing what someone is already taking against what is about to be added — every time they move between settings, including going home.
List every drug with its name, why they take it, how it goes in, the strength and the timing.
Include vitamins, herbal products and anything bought over the counter.
The going-home list adds back anything paused in hospital, and drops anything that was only for the hospital stay.
Technology has moved these numbers a long way. Replacing handwritten orders with computer entry cut medication errors by 50%, and scanning barcodes against the patient's wristband cut them by as much as 85% in some hospitals.
Nothing you do influences whether a patient actually takes the drug more than teaching them about it.
It does two jobs: it explains why the drug matters, and it dispels the rumours that cause therapy failures. It also cuts medication errors by giving the patient accurate information.
The nine components for ANY new medication:
Medication name
Purpose
Dosing regimen
Administration
Adverse effects
Special storage needs
Associated laboratory testing
Food or drug interactions
Duration of therapy
Medication reconciliation — done at every transition of care:
Admission, discharge, a change in level of care, transfer, or going home.
List every current drug with name, indication, route, dose size and dosing interval — including vitamins, herbals and OTC products.
The discharge list includes drugs held during the stay, and excludes drugs only needed during it.
Technology moves these numbers: computerised order entry cut medication errors by 50%, and barcode matching by as much as 85% in some institutions.
Sources for this card
✓TextbookLehne ch03 §Medication education
States that education influences adherence more than any other provider action, and that it dispels rumours and reduces errors.
All of it is Ch. 4 and Ch. 9. The rate-versus-extent distinction is the exam-relevant one and is stated explicitly in Ch. 4. The week 1 deck does not cover absorption, so nothing is cited from it.
Check it yourself: open Lehne's Pharmacotherapeutics 3rd ed. ch 1–10 and look up this topic. If it disagrees with the card, that is worth reporting — the textbook wins over the guide.
Absorption is how much of a dose actually gets into the blood, and how quickly. The route you choose — by mouth, into a vein, into muscle, under the skin — changes both.
Food matters in two different ways, and this is the bit exams like:
If food slows absorption down, the drug takes longer to start working but still gets just as strong.
If food reduces how much is absorbed, the drug never gets as strong at all.
Food usually does the first one, and only sometimes the second.
Anything that changes how long a drug sits in the gut changes absorption too. Diarrhoea rushes it through so less gets in; constipation leaves it there longer so more does.
Babies soak up creams and ointments through the skin much more than adults do, because their skin is thin, so topical medicines can poison them. Injections into muscle work the other way in the first days of life — the muscle has little blood flow, so absorption is slow and unpredictable.
Two more things change absorption: stomach acidity, which decides how much of a drug is in its charged form, and how fast the stomach empties — a slow stomach delays anything absorbed further down in the intestine.
How fast and how much of a dose reaches the bloodstream — and the ROUTE decides both.
Each major route — PO, IV, IM, subQ — has its own absorption pattern, so the route significantly changes both the onset and the intensity of effect.
Food: two different effects, and they are not interchangeable.
What changes
What it does to the peak
Reduced RATE of absorption
Onset is delayed
Peak effect is not lowered
Reduced EXTENT of absorption
Less drug gets in overall
Peak response is lowered
Food frequently reduces the rate, and only occasionally the extent.
Other things that shift absorption:
Gastric pH, through pH partitioning.
Prolonged gastric emptying delays absorption of drugs absorbed in the intestine.
Diarrhoea reduces absorption by rushing the drug through; constipation may increase it by leaving more time.
Infants absorb topical drugs faster and more completely — thin stratum corneum, higher skin blood flow — so they are at increased risk of toxicity from topical agents. IM absorption in a neonate is the opposite: slow and erratic, because muscle blood flow is low in the first days of life.
Sources for this card
✓TextbookLehne ch04 §Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and drug interactions
Gives the four major routes and their distinct absorption patterns, and separates a reduced rate of absorption (delayed onset, same peak) from a reduced extent (lower peak).
✓TextbookLehne ch06 §Individual variation in drug responses
Lists gastric pH, gastric emptying time, diarrhoea and constipation as sources of variation in absorption and bioavailability.
✓TextbookLehne ch09 §Drug therapy in pediatric patients
States that topical absorption is faster and more complete in infants, and that neonatal IM absorption is slow and erratic from low muscle blood flow.
Open one and check this card against it. If it disagrees, that is worth reporting.
Drug distribution
Topic 6 of 67✓textbook
✓textbook
Someone read the assigned chapter and confirmed this card against it.
Ch. 4 for the three determinants, albumin displacement and pH partitioning; Ch. 6 for why dosing uses body surface area. The direction of pH partitioning is the reversal to watch on this card and is stated the same way in both chapters.
Check it yourself: open Lehne's Pharmacotherapeutics 3rd ed. ch 1–10 and look up this topic. If it disagrees with the card, that is worth reporting — the textbook wins over the guide.
Distribution is the drug travelling from the blood to wherever it needs to work.
Three things decide how well that goes: how much blood reaches the tissue, how easily the drug can get out of the blood vessels, and how easily it can get inside cells. Most tissues have plenty of blood, so the first one rarely holds things up.
A lot of drug rides around stuck to a blood protein called albumin. Only the unstuck portion actually works.
There are only a few parking spaces on each albumin molecule.
Two drugs that both need those spaces will compete.
If one knocks the other off, suddenly there is more free, active drug than expected — and that can tip into poisoning.
Acid and alkaline environments trap drugs on one side of a barrier. Acidic drugs pile up on the alkaline side; basic drugs pile up on the acidic side.
Doses are worked out from body surface area rather than weight, because that accounts for how much of the body is fat, and fat changes where the drug ends up.
Movement of drug from the bloodstream to where it actually acts.
Three determinants, in order of weight:
Blood flow to the tissue — but most tissues are well perfused, so this is rarely the limiting factor.
The drug's ability to leave the vascular system.
Its ability to enter cells — the smallest of the three.
Protein binding is where distribution becomes an interaction:
Each albumin molecule has only a few binding sites.
Drugs that bind albumin compete for them.
One drug can displace another, so the displaced drug's FREE concentration rises — and free drug is the active drug.
Push plasma levels high enough and that is toxicity.
pH partitioning: where the pH differs across a membrane, a drug collects on whichever side ionises it more. An acid ionises where it is alkaline — so an acidic drug piles up on the ALKALINE side, and a basic drug piles up on the acidic side.
Dose adjustment uses body surface area rather than weight alone, because surface area accounts for how much of the body is fat — and body fat changes distribution, which changes the concentration at the site of action.
Sources for this card
✓TextbookLehne ch04 §Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and drug interactions
Defines distribution, names blood flow, exit from the vasculature and cell entry as its determinants, and explains albumin competition raising a displaced drug's free concentration.
✓TextbookLehne ch06 §Individual variation in drug responses
States that acidic drugs accumulate on the alkaline side of a membrane and basic drugs on the acidic side, and that dose adjustment by body surface area accounts for adiposity in a way weight alone does not.
Open one and check this card against it. If it disagrees, that is worth reporting.
Drug metabolism
Topic 7 of 67✓textbook
✓textbook
Someone read the assigned chapter and confirmed this card against it.
All Ch. 4. Inducer-down / inhibitor-up is the reversal to guard on this card; the phenobarbital-with-oral-contraceptive example and the stop-the-inducer warning are both the book's own.
Check it yourself: open Lehne's Pharmacotherapeutics 3rd ed. ch 1–10 and look up this topic. If it disagrees with the card, that is worth reporting — the textbook wins over the guide.
Metabolism means the body chemically changes a drug. Almost all of it happens in the liver.
Usually that switches the drug off. But the bigger point is that it makes the drug water-soluble — the kidneys cannot get rid of greasy drugs, only watery ones.
A substrate is a drug the liver enzymes work on.
An inducer speeds those enzymes up, so other drugs get cleared faster and their levels drop.
An inhibitor slows them down, so other drugs build up and levels rise.
One drug can be several of these at once.
Inducers matter twice. Starting one can wipe out another drug — adding phenobarbital to the pill can make the pill stop working. And stopping one is just as risky: the other drug is no longer being cleared quickly, so its level climbs unless you lower the dose.
Some drugs get recycled: the liver dumps them into the gut, the gut releases them again, and they get reabsorbed. That is why certain drugs hang around much longer than you would expect.
Two details that get tested. When an inducer is added, the answer is to raise the other drug's dose — with the pill and phenobarbital, the contraceptive dose has to go up. And the recycling trick only happens to drugs the liver has tagged with glucuronic acid, not to drugs in general.
Enzymatic alteration of drug structure — also called biotransformation — and it happens mostly in the LIVER.
The most common end result is converting an active compound to an inactive one. But the most important consequence is different: metabolism promotes renal excretion, by turning lipid-soluble drugs into water-soluble ones the kidney can actually get rid of.
The three P450 roles — know which is which:
Role
What the drug does
Effect on the OTHER drug's level
Substrate
Is metabolised by P450 enzymes
—
Inducer
Increases the rate of metabolism
Level goes DOWN
Inhibitor
Decreases the rate of metabolism
Level goes UP
A drug can be more than one of these at once — a substrate and an inducer.
Inducers work by making the liver synthesise more enzyme. That means the effect builds, and it also unwinds when the inducer stops: if you do not lower the other drug's dose, its level climbs dangerously as metabolism falls back to baseline.
The worked example: start phenobarbital in someone on oral contraceptives and contraceptive metabolism accelerates, the level falls, and protection against pregnancy can be lost. The contraceptive dose has to go up.
Enterohepatic recirculation keeps some drugs in the body far longer than expected — liver → bile → duodenum → intestinal β-glucuronidase frees the drug → reabsorbed → back to the liver. Only drugs that were glucuronidated do this.
Sources for this card
✓TextbookLehne ch04 §Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and drug interactions
Defines biotransformation and its liver site, names inactivation as the commonest result and renal excretion as the most important consequence, sets out substrate/inducer/inhibitor, and gives the phenobarbital-contraceptive example.
Open one and check this card against it. If it disagrees, that is worth reporting.
Renal drug excretion
Topic 8 of 67✓textbook
✓textbook
Someone read the assigned chapter and confirmed this card against it.
Ch. 4 for the lipid-solubility barrier and breast-milk passage, Ch. 6 for dose reduction in kidney disease, Ch. 9 for the infant figures and Ch. 10 for the creatinine-clearance-not-serum-creatinine rule. That last one is the highest-yield line on the card and is stated explicitly in Ch. 10.
Check it yourself: open Lehne's Pharmacotherapeutics 3rd ed. ch 1–10 and look up this topic. If it disagrees with the card, that is worth reporting — the textbook wins over the guide.
The kidneys do most of the work of getting drugs out of the body — but only if the drug dissolves in water. Greasy drugs cannot be filtered out at all, which is why the liver converts them first.
If the kidneys are failing, drugs stay in the body and build up. Unless the dose comes down, they build up to a poisonous level.
In older people, do not trust a normal creatinine result. Creatinine comes from muscle, and muscle shrinks at the same time as kidney function does — so the number can look fine while the kidneys are working badly. Use creatinine clearance instead.
Newborn kidneys barely work by adult standards, so drugs cleared by the kidney need smaller doses, longer gaps between them, or both. Kidney function catches up to adult levels by about age 1.
Drugs also come out in breast milk. Greasy drugs get in easily; drugs that carry a charge or are stuck to blood proteins mostly do not.
The kidneys are the major organ of drug excretion — and they cannot excrete a drug that is highly lipid soluble.
That is why metabolism matters so much: converting lipid-soluble drugs into hydrophilic forms is what accelerates renal excretion in the first place.
When the kidney is not working:
Kidney disease reduces excretion, so drugs accumulate.
If the dose is not lowered, they accumulate to toxic levels.
So: patient on a renally-eliminated drug + declining renal function = dose must be decreased.
Over 65, judge the kidney by creatinine CLEARANCE — never the serum creatinine alone. Creatinine is a by-product of lean muscle, and muscle wastes at the same pace the kidney does, so the number can sit in range over badly failing kidneys. A handful of drugs use eGFR instead.
A newborn kidney clears very little: flow through it, filtration at the glomerulus and secretion by the tubules are all low through infancy. Renally-cleared drugs therefore need a smaller dose, a longer gap, or both — until roughly age 1, when function reaches adult levels.
Drugs also leave in breast milk, governed by the same rules as any membrane: lipid-soluble drugs cross readily; polar, ionised or protein-bound drugs do not enter in significant amounts.
Sources for this card
✓TextbookLehne ch04 §Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and drug interactions
States the kidneys cannot excrete highly lipid-soluble drugs and that metabolism to hydrophilic forms accelerates excretion; gives the membrane rules for drug passage into breast milk.
✓TextbookLehne ch06 §Individual variation in drug responses
Kidney disease reduces excretion and dosage must be decreased or drugs accumulate to toxic levels.
✓TextbookLehne ch09 §Drug therapy in pediatric patients
Renal excretion is significantly reduced at birth across blood flow, filtration and tubular secretion, reaching adult levels by 1 year.
✓TextbookLehne ch10 §Drug therapy in geriatric patients
Creatinine clearance rather than serum creatinine is the proper index in older adults, because the muscle mass that produces creatinine declines alongside kidney function.
Open one and check this card against it. If it disagrees, that is worth reporting.
Agonists and antagonists
Topic 9 of 67✓textbook
✓textbook
Someone read the assigned chapter and confirmed this card against it.
All Ch. 4. The competitive/non-competitive reversal — which one lowers the maximal response — is the trap on this card; the book states it twice, in the prose and in the Fig. 4.17 legend. The pentazocine/meperidine example is the book's own.
Check it yourself: open Lehne's Pharmacotherapeutics 3rd ed. ch 1–10 and look up this topic. If it disagrees with the card, that is worth reporting — the textbook wins over the guide.
An agonist switches a receptor on. An antagonist stops it being switched on — it is a blocker, not an off-switch.
That means a blocker only looks like it is doing something when there is something to block. Naloxone rescues someone who has overdosed on opioids. Give the same naloxone to someone who has taken no opioid and nothing visible happens at all.
Competitive blockers let go again. They just mean you need more of the real drug to get the same effect — the full effect is still reachable. Most blockers work this way.
Non-competitive blockers latch on permanently. They take receptors out of play, so the best possible effect is now lower, no matter how much agonist you add.
A partial agonist does a bit of both. On its own it gives a moderate effect. But given to someone already on a stronger drug, it takes the receptors and holds them at its own weaker level — so the person ends up with less effect than before, not more.
An antagonist prevents receptor activation — so what it does depends entirely on how much agonist is around.
Give an antagonist when no agonist is present and NOTHING observable happens. The drug binds its receptors and that is all. Give it while receptors are being activated and it shuts the process down — which is why naloxone looks dramatic in an opioid overdose and does nothing in someone who has taken no opioid.
The two classes — and the difference is what happens to the MAXIMUM response:
Competitive
Non-competitive
Binding
Reversible
Irreversible
Maximal agonist response
Not reduced
Reduced
What it changes
More agonist is needed for any given response
Effectively fewer receptors exist to activate
How common
Most antagonists
Fewer
With a competitive antagonist, whichever molecule is present in the highest concentration wins the receptor — so agonist effect can be restored by raising the agonist dose. With a non-competitive antagonist it cannot; enough of it blocks agonist effects completely.
Partial agonists act as both. Pentazocine alone occupies opioid receptors and gives moderate pain relief — an agonist. Give a large dose to someone already on meperidine (a full agonist) and it occupies those receptors and blocks the fuller relief meperidine would have given — an antagonist, in the same patient, at the same time.
Sources for this card
✓TextbookLehne ch04 §Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and drug interactions
States that an antagonist's effect depends on agonist presence, with naloxone as the example, and splits antagonists into reversible competitive (maximal response preserved) and irreversible non-competitive (maximal response reduced).
Open one and check this card against it. If it disagrees, that is worth reporting.
Drug interactions
Topic 10 of 67✓textbook
✓textbook
Someone read the assigned chapter and confirmed this card against it.
Ch. 4 for direct/IV interactions and albumin displacement, Ch. 5 for the desirable-versus-detrimental framing and the prodrug reversal with the paroxetine-tamoxifen example. The prodrug case is the trap on this card: inhibition normally raises levels, and here it lowers effect.
Check it yourself: open Lehne's Pharmacotherapeutics 3rd ed. ch 1–10 and look up this topic. If it disagrees with the card, that is worth reporting — the textbook wins over the guide.
An interaction is just two drugs affecting each other. Some are deliberate — combining blood-pressure drugs on purpose. The bad ones are the accidents.
Ask one question: does this make the treatment work better or make it safer? Then it is a good interaction. Does it make the treatment weaker or more poisonous? Then it is a bad one.
Drugs can react in the bag or syringe, especially in IV fluids. Sometimes you see it go cloudy — but not always, so looking is not enough. Check before you order.
Drugs can also interfere with each other at any of the four stages: getting in, moving around, being broken down, being cleared out.
Two drugs can fight over the same parking spaces on blood proteins. Whichever gets knocked off is suddenly more active than expected.
Normally, blocking a drug's breakdown makes it build up and become dangerous. But there is an important exception: some drugs are inactive until the body converts them. Block that conversion and the drug simply stops working — paroxetine can do this to tamoxifen.
There are far too many combinations to memorise. Look them up.
Any time a patient takes two or more drugs — and some interactions are exactly what you wanted.
Combining drugs to treat hypertension is an intended, desired interaction. The problem ones are unintended and undesired. The test is simple: an interaction that increases therapeutic effect or reduces toxicity is desirable; one that reduces therapeutic effect or increases toxicity is detrimental.
Where they happen:
Direct, in solution — most often when drugs are combined in IV solutions. Often a precipitate forms, but not always visibly, so inspection alone cannot rule it out. Verify incompatibilities when ordering.
Through pharmacokinetics — an interaction can hit any of the four processes: absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion.
Two mechanisms worth naming:
Albumin displacement. Binding sites are limited; one drug displaces another; the displaced drug's FREE concentration rises and responses intensify — to the point of toxicity.
Altered metabolism — the most important and most complex. Inducers lower the other drug's level; inhibitors raise it.
Inhibition usually means toxicity — but there is a reversal. For a prodrug, which must be metabolised INTO its active form, inhibiting metabolism makes it less effective, not more toxic. CYP2D6 inhibitors such as paroxetine can block tamoxifen's conversion to its active form.
The number of possible interactions is too large to hold in your head. The book's own advice: check a reliable interaction database.
Sources for this card
✓TextbookLehne ch04 §Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and drug interactions
Covers direct interactions in IV solutions and warns they may leave no visible evidence; explains albumin competition raising a displaced drug's free level; states interactions can affect all four pharmacokinetic processes.
✓TextbookLehne ch05 §Drug interactions
Frames interactions as desirable or detrimental by their effect on benefit and toxicity, and gives the prodrug exception with CYP2D6 inhibitors preventing tamoxifen activation.
▣Course modulemodule wk1 §Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics
Names the four pharmacokinetic processes and ties knowing them to minimising adverse drug reactions.
Open one and check this card against it. If it disagrees, that is worth reporting.
Hepatic drug metabolism
Topic 11 of 67✓textbook
✓textbook
Someone read the assigned chapter and confirmed this card against it.
Ch. 4 for the CYP3A4/grapefruit mechanism including the intestinal-versus-hepatic asymmetry and the IV exception; Ch. 9 for the developmental curve. The neonate-reduce / child-increase reversal is the one to guard here.
Check it yourself: open Lehne's Pharmacotherapeutics 3rd ed. ch 1–10 and look up this topic. If it disagrees with the card, that is worth reporting — the textbook wins over the guide.
The liver has a family of enzymes called cytochrome P450. Most drug-on-drug interactions happen there — one drug speeding those enzymes up or slowing them down for another.
Grapefruit juice is the famous example, and the details are what get tested:
It blocks an enzyme called CYP3A4.
It blocks it much more strongly in the gut wall than in the liver.
So more of a swallowed drug survives the gut and gets into the blood, and the effect is stronger than intended.
It barely matters for drugs given into a vein, because those never pass through the gut.
More juice means more blocking.
How well the liver handles drugs changes with age, and it changes direction:
Newborns clear drugs slowly, so doses must be lowered.
The liver is fully grown by about age 1.
After that, children clear drugs faster than adults until puberty — so they may need a bigger dose or doses closer together.
The liver's cytochrome P450 system is where most drug–drug interactions are decided.
Of every way two drugs can interfere, changing each other's metabolism is the one that matters most and behaves least predictably. An inducer makes the liver build more enzyme; an inhibitor blocks the enzyme already there.
Grapefruit juice — the classic, and the detail matters:
It inhibits CYP3A4, an isoenzyme found in both the liver and the intestinal wall.
Inhibition of the intestinal isoenzyme is much greater than of the liver one.
So it decreases INTESTINAL metabolism, more drug survives to be absorbed, blood levels rise and peak effects intensify.
It usually does not affect metabolism after absorption, and has little or no effect on IV drugs — because IV bypasses the intestine entirely.
The inhibition is dose dependent: more juice, more inhibition.
Hepatic capacity is not constant across a life. Newborn metabolising capacity is LOW — reduce doses. It rises rapidly about a month after birth and the liver matures fully by 1 year. Then children metabolise drugs faster than adults: markedly elevated until age 2, declining gradually, with a sharp drop at puberty to adult values.
So a child over 1 may need a higher dose or a shorter dosing interval for a drug cleared by the liver — the opposite of the neonatal adjustment.
Sources for this card
✓TextbookLehne ch04 §Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and drug interactions
Names induction and inhibition of hepatic enzymes as the interaction mechanism, and gives grapefruit juice as CYP3A4 inhibition that is mostly intestinal, dose dependent, and largely irrelevant to IV drugs.
✓TextbookLehne ch09 §Drug therapy in pediatric patients
States that newborn metabolising capacity is low and doses must be reduced, that the liver matures by 1 year, and that children then metabolise faster than adults until puberty, so dose may need raising or the interval shortening.
Open one and check this card against it. If it disagrees, that is worth reporting.
Half-life
Topic 12 of 67✓textbook
✓textbook
Someone read the assigned chapter and confirmed this card against it.
All Ch. 4, including the morphine numbers, the four-half-lives/94% figure and the ethanol exception. The deck and the webinar do not cover half-life, so nothing is cited from either.
Check it yourself: open Lehne's Pharmacotherapeutics 3rd ed. ch 1–10 and look up this topic. If it disagrees with the card, that is worth reporting — the textbook wins over the guide.
Half-life is how long it takes for half of whatever drug is in the body to disappear. Half — not a set number of milligrams.
Morphine's half-life is about 3 hours. If there is 50 mg in there, 25 mg goes in 3 hours. If there is only 2 mg, just 1 mg goes in those same 3 hours. The fraction is the same; the amount is not.
It tells you how far apart the doses go. A drug that disappears quickly has to be given often, or the level drops too low to work between doses. A drug that lingers can be given once a day.
After someone stops a drug, roughly 94% of it is gone after about four half-lives. That is why an overdose of a long-lasting drug is so much harder to manage — it stays at dangerous levels for a long time.
Alcohol is the odd one out: it leaves at a steady rate no matter how much you have had.
The time for the amount of drug in the body to fall by 50% — a PERCENTAGE, never a fixed amount.
Half-life does not say "18 mg leaves in four hours". It says that whatever is in there, half of it goes in one half-life. So the actual amount lost is larger when body stores are higher.
Morphine's half-life is about 3 hours. With 50 mg on board, 25 mg goes in 3 hours. With 2 mg on board, 1 mg goes in 3 hours. Same 50%, very different amounts.
What it is actually FOR:
It sets the dosing interval. Short half-life → doses must be close together, or levels fall below the minimum effective concentration between them and the effect is lost.
Long half-life → doses can be far apart without losing benefit.
After stopping a drug, about 94% is gone in roughly four half-lives. That is why a long half-life is dangerous in overdose — toxic levels persist for a long time, and management gets harder.
It does not describe every drug. Ethanol is the exception: it leaves at a fixed rate per hour, however much of it is on board.
Sources for this card
✓TextbookLehne ch04 §Drug half-life
Defines half-life as a percentage rather than a fixed amount, works the morphine example at 3 hours, ties half-life to the dosing interval and the minimum effective concentration, states that about 94% is eliminated over four half-lives, and excepts ethanol as leaving at a constant rate.
Open one and check this card against it. If it disagrees, that is worth reporting.
Ways to minimize adverse drug reactions
Topic 13 of 67✓textbook
✓textbook
Someone read the assigned chapter and confirmed this card against it.
The six-point list is Ch. 5's, kept in the book's order. The geriatric additions and the four factors behind higher ADR rates in older adults are Ch. 10's. The added-OR-removed point on inducers is stated in Ch. 4 and is the half people forget.
Check it yourself: open Lehne's Pharmacotherapeutics 3rd ed. ch 1–10 and look up this topic. If it disagrees with the card, that is worth reporting — the textbook wins over the guide.
Most of preventing harm is unglamorous: prescribe fewer drugs, and know what someone is actually taking.
Use as few medicines as you can get away with.
Ask about everything — including things bought over the counter and things not obtained legally.
When you add a drug that speeds up metabolism, adjust the others. Do the same when you take one away — that half gets forgotten.
Think about timing, so one drug is not blocking another's absorption.
If you cannot avoid combining risky drugs, watch closely for the first signs of trouble.
Be most careful with drugs where the safe dose and the dangerous dose are close together.
With older people, add one more habit: go through the list every so often and stop what is no longer needed. Ask about herbal remedies and supplements too, and encourage them to throw out old medicines.
Over 100 drugs can disturb the heart's rhythm in a specific way (QT prolongation), and they come from all sorts of drug families — so it is worth checking rather than assuming.
Older adults get more of these reactions for four reasons: their organs handle drugs differently, they have several serious illnesses, they are on several drugs at once, and they often do not take them as prescribed.
On the QT drugs: several have been pulled off the market after deaths, and the FDA now makes every new drug get tested for the effect before approval.
Fewer drugs, a real drug history, and extra vigilance where the margin is narrow.
The book's list, in its own order:
Minimise the number of drugs the patient receives. The most obvious one, and the most effective.
Take a thorough drug history — including illicit and over-the-counter preparations — so the regimen can be adjusted to what they are really taking.
Adjust the dosage when an inducer is ADDED to or REMOVED from the regimen. Both directions.
Adjust the timing of administration to minimise interference with absorption.
Monitor for early signs of toxicity when a combination of toxic agents cannot be avoided.
Be especially vigilant with a narrow therapeutic range.
In older adults specifically: take a thorough drug history including OTC medicines, herbal remedies and supplements; periodically review whether each drug is still needed and stop the ones that are not; and encourage disposal of old medications.
Why older adults carry more ADRs at all — four factors: altered pharmacokinetics from organ degeneration, multiple and severe illnesses, multidrug therapy, and poor adherence.
Watch the QT drugs. Over 100 of them lengthen the QT interval, trigger torsades de pointes, or do both — and they sit in a great many unrelated drug families. Deaths have taken several off the market, and every new drug must now be tested for the effect.
Sources for this card
✓TextbookLehne ch05 §Ways to minimize adverse drug reactions
Gives the list: fewest drugs, thorough history including illicit and OTC, dose adjustment when an inducer is added or deleted, timing around absorption, monitoring when toxic combinations are unavoidable, and vigilance with a narrow therapeutic range.
✓TextbookLehne ch10 §Drug therapy in geriatric patients
Names altered pharmacokinetics, multiple illnesses, multidrug therapy and poor adherence as the four factors, and adds periodic review, disposal of old medicines and a history covering herbals and supplements.
✓TextbookLehne ch05 §QT interval drugs
More than 100 drugs cause QT prolongation or torsades across many families; some have been withdrawn and all new drugs must now be tested.
▣Course modulemodule wk1 §Adverse Reactions
Frames the therapeutic index as the measure of safety a prescriber works within.
Open one and check this card against it. If it disagrees, that is worth reporting.
Boxed warnings
Topic 14 of 67✓textbook
✓textbook
Someone read the assigned chapter and confirmed this card against it.
Ch. 5, closely followed — the definition, the two purposes, the three placements, the MedGuide requirement and the promethazine example are all the book's.
Check it yourself: open Lehne's Pharmacotherapeutics 3rd ed. ch 1–10 and look up this topic. If it disagrees with the card, that is worth reporting — the textbook wins over the guide.
A boxed warning — people also say black box warning — is the most serious warning the FDA can put on a drug that is still allowed to be sold. It is literally printed inside a heavy black box.
It does two jobs: it names the dangerous thing that can happen, and it tells you how to avoid it.
It has to show up on the package insert, on the label, and even in magazine adverts. Any drug carrying one must also come with a patient Medication Guide.
Promethazine is the example to remember. It must not be given to children under 2 because it can stop them breathing properly, and injecting it can destroy the tissue around the injection site.
The FDA has three tools, in increasing seriousness: a Medication Guide written for patients, the boxed warning aimed at prescribers, and a REMS — a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy — which puts obligations on patients, prescribers and pharmacists together.
The most severe warning the FDA can attach to a drug that is still allowed to be sold.
Also called a black box warning, after the thick black rule printed around it. The FDA imposes one wherever a drug carries serious or life-threatening risk.
It exists to tell providers two things:
The potentially severe effects — life-threatening dysrhythmias, suicidality, major fetal harm.
How to prevent or reduce the harm — for example, avoiding a teratogenic drug in pregnancy.
Where it has to appear:
Prominently on the package insert
On the product label
Even in magazine advertising
A drug with a boxed warning must ALSO have a MedGuide. The FDA's three escalating tools are the Medication Guide (for patients), the boxed warning (for providers), and a REMS — Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy — which can involve patients, providers and pharmacists together.
The book's example is promethazine (Phenergan): contraindicated under age 2 because it causes respiratory depression, and by injection it risks severe tissue injury and necrosis.
Sources for this card
✓TextbookLehne ch05 §Boxed warnings
Defines the boxed warning as the strongest warning compatible with remaining on the market, gives its two purposes and its three required placements, requires a MedGuide alongside it, sets it among the Medication Guide and REMS, and gives promethazine as the example.
◆Slideswk1 s4
Lists individual variation, comorbidities and tolerance as prescribing considerations alongside drug safety.
Open one and check this card against it. If it disagrees, that is worth reporting.
Special considerations in drug metabolism
Topic 15 of 67✓textbook
✓textbook
Someone read the assigned chapter and confirmed this card against it.
This card follows Ch. 4's own section of the same name and keeps its five subheadings in order: age, induction and inhibition, first-pass effect, nutritional status, competition between drugs. Nutritional status and competition are the two the topic list would not lead you to guess.
Check it yourself: open Lehne's Pharmacotherapeutics 3rd ed. ch 1–10 and look up this topic. If it disagrees with the card, that is worth reporting — the textbook wins over the guide.
Five things speed up or slow down how fast the liver deals with a drug.
Age. Babies cannot break drugs down properly until about their first birthday. Older adults slow down too, so both often need smaller doses — for different reasons.
Inducers and inhibitors. An inducer makes the liver build more enzymes, so drugs get destroyed faster and levels drop, sometimes too low to work. An inhibitor does the opposite: the drug piles up and becomes toxic.
Nutrition. The liver's enzymes need certain nutrients to work. In someone malnourished, they may not be there.
Competition. Two drugs that use the same liver pathway get in each other's way, and one or both hang around longer than they should.
The fifth is the first-pass effect. Anything swallowed goes to the liver before it reaches the rest of the body. If the liver is very good at destroying that particular drug, it can all be gone before it ever gets anywhere useful — so the tablet does nothing. The fix is to give it by injection instead, which skips that first trip through the liver.
Five things change how fast a drug is metabolised, and every one has to be accounted for in prescribing.
1 · Age — and it cuts both ways:
Infants: metabolising capacity is limited; the liver does not reach full capacity until about 1 year after birth. Until then they are especially sensitive.
Older adults: metabolising ability is commonly decreased, so doses may need reducing to prevent toxicity.
2 · Induction and inhibition:
Inducers stimulate enzyme synthesis in the liver. More metabolism → less active drug → plasma levels fall. Without a dose adjustment the drug may never reach therapeutic levels.
Inhibitors slow metabolism → active drug accumulates → more adverse effects and toxicity.
3 · First-pass effect — rapid hepatic inactivation of certain ORAL drugs. Absorbed from the GI tract, they go straight to the liver via the hepatic portal vein before reaching the systemic circulation. If hepatic capacity is high enough the drug is completely inactivated on that first pass and produces no effect at all. The workaround is to give it parenterally, which temporarily bypasses the liver.
4 and 5 · The two that are easy to forget:
Nutritional status. Hepatic drug-metabolising enzymes need cofactors. In a malnourished patient those cofactors may be deficient and metabolism is compromised.
Competition between drugs. Two drugs on the same metabolic pathway compete, slowing metabolism of one or both — far enough, and a drug accumulates to dangerous levels.
Sources for this card
✓TextbookLehne ch04 §Special considerations in drug metabolism
Names the five factors: infant and older-adult metabolising capacity, induction and inhibition, the first-pass effect with its parenteral workaround, cofactor deficiency in malnutrition, and competition between drugs sharing a pathway.
Open one and check this card against it. If it disagrees, that is worth reporting.
Drug therapy during pregnancy
Topic 16 of 67✓textbook
✓textbook
Someone read the assigned chapter and confirmed this card against it.
All Ch. 8, numbers included. Two reversals to guard: renal and hepatic changes mean INCREASE the dose while the slowed bowel means REDUCE it, and the 1-3% figure is major structural anomalies overall, not drug-caused ones — drugs account for under 1% of all anomalies.
Check it yourself: open Lehne's Pharmacotherapeutics 3rd ed. ch 1–10 and look up this topic. If it disagrees with the card, that is worth reporting — the textbook wins over the guide.
Start from the assumption that anything the pregnant person takes reaches the baby. Greasy drugs cross the placenta easily, and although charged or protein-bound ones cross less well, it is safer to assume they all get through.
Pregnancy changes how the body handles drugs, and the changes pull in opposite directions:
The kidneys work much harder — by the third trimester blood flow through them has doubled — so drugs cleared by the kidneys are washed out faster and doses often need to go up. Lithium is cleared twice as fast.
The liver also speeds up for some drugs, including phenytoin, carbamazepine and valproic acid — again, doses up.
But the bowel slows down, so swallowed drugs sit there longer and more is absorbed — that pushes doses down.
Teratogenesis means causing birth defects. Worth keeping in proportion: 1 to 3 in 100 babies have a major structural abnormality, about a quarter of all birth defects are genetic, and fewer than 1 in 100 are caused by drugs at all.
When the drug was taken matters more than which drug:
Up to week 2 it is all or nothing — either the pregnancy ends, or it continues unharmed.
Weeks 3 to 8 is when the organs are forming. This is the dangerous window for malformations.
Week 9 onwards the organs are already built.
So if someone has taken something worrying, work out the dates first. If it was outside weeks 3 to 8, you can genuinely reassure them.
And if it was inside weeks 3 to 8: look up which malformation that particular drug causes, then arrange at least two ultrasound scans to see how much damage there is.
Assume any drug taken during pregnancy reaches the fetus — the placenta follows the same membrane rules as everywhere else.
Lipid-soluble drugs cross easily; ionised, highly polar or protein-bound drugs cross with difficulty. But for practical purposes, assume it gets through.
Pregnancy changes the mother's pharmacokinetics — and not all in the same direction:
Change
By when
What it does
Dose
Renal blood flow doubled, big rise in GFR
Third trimester
Accelerated clearance of renally-filtered drugs — lithium elimination up 100%
Increase
Hepatic metabolism increases for some drugs
—
Phenytoin, carbamazepine, valproic acid
Increase
Bowel tone and motility decrease, transit time increases
—
More time to absorb, and more reabsorption of enterohepatically recycled drugs
Reduce
Teratogenesis means causing congenital anomalies. Keep the proportions straight: major structural defects occur in 1–3% of births, roughly a quarter of all anomalies trace to genetics, and under 1% are drug-caused. Most have no known cause at all.
Timing decides everything — three stages:
Preimplantation / presomite, conception to week 2 — teratogens act all-or-nothing: a high enough dose kills the conceptus.
Embryonic, weeks 3–8 — organogenesis. This is the period of gross malformation.
Fetal, week 9 to term — beyond organogenesis.
So after a known exposure, the first job is to establish exactly when the drug was taken and when the pregnancy began. Outside weeks 3–8, reassure: the risk of drug-induced malformation is minimal. Inside it, look up the expected malformation and get at least two ultrasound scans.
Sources for this card
✓TextbookLehne ch08 §Physiologic changes during pregnancy
Gives doubled third-trimester renal blood flow with lithium clearance up 100%, increased hepatic metabolism of phenytoin, carbamazepine and valproic acid, and reduced bowel motility prolonging absorption — with the dose direction for each.
✓TextbookLehne ch08 §Placental drug transfer
Placental passage follows the same membrane rules as elsewhere, but the provider should assume any drug taken reaches the fetus.
✓TextbookLehne ch08 §Incidence and causes of congenital anomalies
Major structural abnormalities occur in 1-3%; genetics account for about 25% of anomalies and drugs for less than 1%.
✓TextbookLehne ch08 §Teratogenesis and stage of development
Names the three developmental stages with their weeks, and the all-or-nothing behaviour of the preimplantation period.
✓TextbookLehne ch08 §Responding to teratogen exposure
Establish the timing first; outside organogenesis at weeks 3-8 reassure, and inside it consult a reference and obtain at least two ultrasound scans.
Open one and check this card against it. If it disagrees, that is worth reporting.
Pregnancy risk categories
Topic 17 of 67✓textbook
✓textbook
Someone read the assigned chapter and confirmed this card against it.
Ch. 8. The dates are the exam-relevant detail and are the book's: established 1979, phase-out complete 2020, PLLR issued December 2014. The card leads with the categories being obsolete because that is the fact most likely to be got backwards.
Check it yourself: open Lehne's Pharmacotherapeutics 3rd ed. ch 1–10 and look up this topic. If it disagrees with the card, that is worth reporting — the textbook wins over the guide.
The old letter grades — A, B, C, D and X — are no longer used. The FDA introduced them in 1979 and finished phasing them out in 2020.
They were dropped because a single letter said too little. Category B, for example, only meant animal studies existed — which tells you very little about people, and sometimes the studies were not good enough to tell you anything at all.
You still have to know them, because almost everything written before 2020 uses them, and that is most of the literature you will read.
What replaced them is a written description in three parts: one about pregnancy, one about breastfeeding, and one about people of either sex who could become or father a pregnancy. The rule came in at the end of 2014.
The A / B / C / D / X letters are OBSOLETE — phased out by 2020 — but you still need to recognise them.
The FDA set them up in 1979 to classify drugs by probable risk to the fetus: five categories, A, B, C, D and X.
Why they were retired:
The system was helpful but far from ideal.
Category B, for instance, meant only that animal reproduction studies existed. That says nothing definite about people — and the studies behind it were sometimes neither the right kind nor numerous enough to establish risk either way.
Problems and confusion led the FDA to phase them out over a period ending in 2020.
Learn them anyway. They are still prominent throughout pre-2020 literature, which is most of what you will read — so the book explicitly says a provider should stay familiar with them.
What replaced them — the Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling Rule (PLLR), issued December 2014:
Pregnancy
Lactation
Females and males of reproductive potential
Three narrative sections instead of a single letter, each divided into subsections with specified content. The point of the change is that a letter cannot carry the nuance a prescribing decision actually needs.
Sources for this card
✓TextbookLehne ch08 §U.S. Food and Drug Administration pregnancy risk categories
The 1979 A-X system, why Category B was unsatisfactory, the phase-out ending in 2020, and the advice to stay familiar because pre-2020 literature still uses them.
✓TextbookLehne ch08 §U.S. Food and Drug Administration pregnancy and lactation labeling rule
The PLLR was issued in December 2014 and requires three labelling sections: pregnancy, lactation, and females and males of reproductive potential.
▣Course modulemodule wk1 §Key Points
States that pregnancy drug categories ranging from A to X guide medication safety in pregnancy.
Open one and check this card against it. If it disagrees, that is worth reporting.
Age-related pharmacokinetic changes
Topic 18 of 67✓textbook
✓textbook
Someone read the assigned chapter and confirmed this card against it.
Ch. 10's own four subsections, in order. Two reversals to guard: fat-soluble drugs become LESS effective while water-soluble ones become MORE intense, and first-pass drugs are ENHANCED rather than reduced by declining liver function.
Check it yourself: open Lehne's Pharmacotherapeutics 3rd ed. ch 1–10 and look up this topic. If it disagrees with the card, that is worth reporting — the textbook wins over the guide.
Ageing changes all four stages, but not equally. Absorption barely matters; the kidneys matter most.
Getting in. Older people still absorb about the same amount of a tablet — it just arrives a bit more slowly. The one exception is drugs that need stomach acid to dissolve, and stomach acid drops with age.
Moving around. Four changes, and they push in opposite directions:
More body fat means greasy drugs get soaked up into fat and stored, so less is active in the blood and the effect is weaker.
Less muscle and less body water means watery drugs are squeezed into a smaller space, so they are more concentrated and the effect is stronger.
Less albumin in the blood means fewer parking spaces, so more drug is floating free and active. This gets much worse if the person is malnourished.
Breaking down. The liver shrinks and slows, so drugs hang around longer. Oddly, tablets that the liver normally destroys on the way in now work better than expected, because less of them is destroyed. How much any of this happens varies hugely from person to person.
Clearing out. Kidney function has been declining since early adulthood. Drugs building up because the kidneys cannot clear them is the single biggest cause of drug harm in older people.
All four processes shift with age — and absorption is the one that matters LEAST.
Absorption — the surprise:
Changes in gut absorption are not what makes older adults drug-sensitive.
The percentage of an oral dose absorbed usually does not change with age.
The rate may slow — delayed gastric emptying, reduced splanchnic blood flow — so responses are somewhat delayed.
Reduced gastric acidity can lower absorption of formulations that need high acidity to dissolve.
Distribution — four changes, pulling opposite ways:
Smaller volume → concentration increased → effects more intense
↓ total body water
Water-soluble
Same as above
↓ serum albumin
Protein-bound
Fewer binding sites → free drug rises → effects more intense
Albumin is only slightly reduced in a healthy older adult — it falls significantly in one who is malnourished.
Metabolism declines — less hepatic blood flow, less liver mass, less enzyme activity. Half-lives lengthen. And responses to oral drugs that normally undergo extensive first-pass metabolism are ENHANCED, because less is inactivated before reaching the circulation. But the degree of decline varies so much between individuals that you cannot predict it for any one patient.
Excretion is the one that matters. Kidney function has been falling since early adulthood, and drugs piling up behind a slower kidney is the single largest source of adverse reactions in older adults.
Sources for this card
✓TextbookLehne ch10 §Absorption
Absorption is not a major factor; the extent is usually unchanged, the rate may slow, and reduced gastric acidity can impair drugs needing acid to dissolve.
✓TextbookLehne ch10 §Distribution
Names the four changes and their opposite effects on lipid-soluble versus water-soluble drugs, with propranolol and ethanol as the examples, and notes albumin falls significantly only with malnutrition.
✓TextbookLehne ch10 §Metabolism
Hepatic metabolism declines from reduced blood flow, liver mass and enzyme activity; half-lives lengthen and first-pass drugs are enhanced; the degree varies too much to predict individually.
✓TextbookLehne ch10 §Excretion
Renal decline begins in early adulthood and accumulation from reduced renal excretion is the most important cause of ADRs in older adults.
Open one and check this card against it. If it disagrees, that is worth reporting.
Prescribing for elderly populations
Topic 19 of 67✓textbook
✓textbook
Someone read the assigned chapter and confirmed this card against it.
All Ch. 10. The 75%-intentional figure is the highest-yield line here and is stated plainly in §Promoting adherence; it is also the one most likely to be inverted, since the intuitive answer is forgetfulness.
Check it yourself: open Lehne's Pharmacotherapeutics 3rd ed. ch 1–10 and look up this topic. If it disagrees with the card, that is worth reporting — the textbook wins over the guide.
Older people react more strongly to drugs, vary more from one another, and get more side effects and interactions. Four reasons: their organs handle drugs differently, they have more illnesses, they take more medicines, and they often do not take them as directed.
Somewhere between a quarter and nearly six in ten older patients do not take their medicines as prescribed. Nine times out of ten the problem is taking too little rather than too much, and it causes up to one in ten hospital admissions.
Here is the surprising bit: roughly three quarters of that is deliberate. Not forgetting — deciding. The most common reason people give is that they did not think they needed the drug at that dose. Side effects and cost come next.
That matters, because a pill box solves forgetting. It does not solve someone quietly disagreeing with you.
Keep the regimen as simple as you can.
Ask about everything they take, including herbal remedies and supplements.
Review the whole list regularly and stop what is no longer needed.
Watch out for people living alone, seeing several prescribers, or struggling with packaging.
Four more habits worth keeping: measure drug levels where that actually guides the dose, watch for drugs interacting and for illness you have caused yourself, get old medicines thrown away, and avoid anything on the Beers list unless the benefit is worth it.
Individualise, monitor, adjust — and expect the goal to be symptom relief and quality of life, not cure.
Older adults are more sensitive to drugs, show wider individual variation, and experience more ADRs and drug–drug interactions. Four factors drive it: altered pharmacokinetics from organ degeneration, multiple and severe illnesses, multidrug therapy, and poor adherence.
Adherence — the numbers are worse than most people assume:
Between 26% and 59% of older adults fail to take medicines as prescribed.
Of the two failure directions, underdosing is by far the more common — 90%.
Nonadherence accounts for up to 10% of all hospital admissions.
About 75% of nonadherence in older adults is INTENTIONAL — not forgetfulness. The principal reason given is the patient's conviction that the drug simply was not needed at the dose prescribed. Side effects and expense come next. That changes the intervention entirely: a pill organiser does not answer a decision.
Prescribing habits that reduce harm:
Use the simplest regimen possible — fewer drugs, fewer daily doses.
Take a thorough drug history including OTC medicines, herbal remedies and supplements.
Periodically review whether each drug is still needed, and discontinue as appropriate.
Monitor drug levels where they give a rational basis for dose adjustment.
Watch for drug–drug interactions and iatrogenic illness.
Encourage disposal of old medications.
Avoid Beers list drugs unless benefits outweigh risks.
Risk factors for poor adherence worth spotting: multiple chronic disorders, multiple prescribers, packaging that is hard to open, recent regimen changes, cognitive or physical impairment, and living alone.
Sources for this card
✓TextbookLehne ch10 §Drug therapy in geriatric patients
Names the four factors behind greater sensitivity and more ADRs, sets individualisation as essential, and frames the usual objective as symptom reduction and quality of life.
✓TextbookLehne ch10 §Promoting adherence
Gives the 26-59% nonadherence range, underdosing as 90% of failures, up to 10% of hospital admissions, that about 75% is intentional with the drug being thought unnecessary as the main reason, and Box 10.2's risk factors including living alone.
◆Slideswk1 s15
Covers prescribing considerations in older adults.
▣Course modulemodule wk1 §Key Points
Notes that ADRs are far more prevalent in older adults and that several strategies exist to reduce them.
Open one and check this card against it. If it disagrees, that is worth reporting.
Pharmacokinetics in elderly and infants
Topic 20 of 67✓textbook
✓textbook
Someone read the assigned chapter and confirmed this card against it.
Ch. 6 for the immaturity-versus-decline framing, Ch. 9 for the five processes and the developmental curve, Ch. 10 for the geriatric side. The card exists to hold the two ends side by side, which is what the topic title asks for; the reversal to guard is that children over 1 metabolise FASTER, not slower.
Check it yourself: open Lehne's Pharmacotherapeutics 3rd ed. ch 1–10 and look up this topic. If it disagrees with the card, that is worth reporting — the textbook wins over the guide.
The very young and the very old are both unusually sensitive to drugs — but for opposite reasons. Babies have organs that have not finished developing. Older adults have organs that are wearing out.
In a baby, five things are still immature: how drugs get absorbed, how they stick to blood proteins, how well the brain is shielded from them, how the liver breaks them down, and how the kidneys clear them out.
The brain shield is the one that catches people out. It is not finished at birth, so drugs get into the brain far too easily. Anything meant to act on the brain — morphine, phenobarbital — needs a smaller dose, and so does anything that might affect the brain by accident.
Then it reverses. From about age 1 a child is broadly like an adult, except for one thing: children break drugs down faster than adults do. That stays true until puberty. So a child may need a bigger dose, or doses closer together — not smaller ones.
Two absorption oddities in babies: creams and ointments go through their thin skin much more easily, so topical medicines can poison them; but injections into muscle are absorbed slowly and unpredictably in the first days of life.
Both ends of life are more sensitive to drugs — but for OPPOSITE reasons.
Infants
Older adults
Why sensitive
Organ immaturity
Organ decline in function
Compounding factors
Greater individual variation
Multiple comorbidities, multidrug therapy
Liver
Low capacity; matures by 1 year
Reduced blood flow, mass and enzyme activity
Kidney
Low flow, filtration and secretion; adult levels by 1 year
Progressive decline from early adulthood
The five immature processes in infants:
Drug absorption
Protein binding of drugs
Exclusion of drugs from the CNS by the blood-brain barrier
Hepatic drug metabolism
Renal drug excretion
A newborn's blood-brain barrier is still unfinished, so drugs reach the central nervous system far too readily. Every drug used for a CNS effect — morphine, phenobarbital — needs a reduced dose, and so does any drug that can cause CNS toxicity as a side effect.
Then it flips. By age 1 most pharmacokinetic parameters resemble an adult's, with one exception: children metabolise drugs FASTER than adults. Capacity is markedly elevated until age 2, declines gradually, then drops sharply at puberty to adult values — so a child may need a larger dose or a shorter interval for a hepatically-cleared drug.
Infants absorb topical drugs faster and more completely (thin stratum corneum, greater skin blood flow) — increased toxicity risk. Neonatal IM absorption is the opposite: slow and erratic, from low muscle blood flow in the first days.
Sources for this card
✓TextbookLehne ch06 §Individual variation in drug responses
Heightened sensitivity in the very young comes from organ immaturity and in older adults from declining organ function, comorbidities and multidrug therapy.
✓TextbookLehne ch09 §Drug therapy in pediatric patients
Lists the five immature pharmacokinetic processes, the incomplete blood-brain barrier with morphine and phenobarbital as examples, liver and kidney maturity by 1 year, faster-than-adult metabolism until puberty, and the topical and IM absorption differences.
✓TextbookLehne ch10 §Pharmacokinetic changes in older adults
Gives the geriatric side of each process for comparison.
Open one and check this card against it. If it disagrees, that is worth reporting.
Beers Criteria medications
Topic 21 of 67✓textbook
✓textbook
Someone read the assigned chapter and confirmed this card against it.
Ch. 10, including the 2023 update, the warfarin addition and the hospice exception. The 'illogical to stop on age alone' point is the book's own wording of the idea and is the part most likely to be tested as a distractor.
Check it yourself: open Lehne's Pharmacotherapeutics 3rd ed. ch 1–10 and look up this topic. If it disagrees with the card, that is worth reporting — the textbook wins over the guide.
The Beers list names medicines that tend to cause problems in people over 65. It comes from the American Geriatrics Society and was last updated in 2023, when warfarin was added.
It is a warning list, not a banned list. You can still prescribe them if the benefit clearly outweighs the risk, and the rules relax for people in hospice or at the end of life.
Here is the part people get wrong. Someone may have been started on one of these drugs years before they turned 65. If it is working and causing no trouble, stopping it just because of their age is not good care — the book says so directly. Decide on the person, not the birthday.
There is a second list called STOPP/START that does a similar job.
Around all of this, the general habits are: keep the regimen as simple as possible, watch for drugs interacting, and go through the list every so often to stop what is no longer needed.
The medicines most likely to go wrong in an older adult — avoid past 65 unless the benefit clearly and substantially outweighs the risk.
Its full title is the Beers Criteria for Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in Older Adults. From the American Geriatrics Society, most recently updated in 2023 — the update that added warfarin.
It is a flag, not a ban. Two exceptions built in:
Where the benefit significantly outweighs the risk.
Hospice and end-of-life patients.
The trap: patients are often started on these drugs long before 65. If the drug is meeting their needs and causing no problems, the book says it would be illogical to stop it or reduce it on the basis of age alone. Weigh benefit and risk against that individual's history — do not deprescribe by birthday.
STOPP/START is the other well-known list — Screening Tool of Older People's potentially inappropriate Prescriptions. Same purpose, identifying drugs that may be dangerous in older adults.
The wider geriatric prescribing habits it sits inside:
Use the simplest medication regimen possible.
Monitor for drug–drug interactions and iatrogenic illness.
Periodically review the need for continued therapy and discontinue as appropriate.
Encourage disposal of old medications, and take steps to promote adherence.
Sources for this card
✓TextbookLehne ch10 §Beers List and STOPP/START criteria
Defines the Beers list, sets the over-65 avoidance with the benefit-outweighs-risk and hospice exceptions, dates the update to 2023 with warfarin newly added, expands STOPP, and warns against stopping a working drug on age alone.
✓TextbookLehne ch10 §Drug therapy in geriatric patients
Gives the surrounding prescribing habits — simplest regimen, monitoring for interactions, periodic review, disposal, adherence.
◆Slideswk1 s15
Names the Beers Criteria among geriatric prescribing considerations.
▣Course modulemodule wk1 §Key Points
Notes the American Geriatric Society's 2023 recommendations, including the Beers strategies, for reducing ADRs in older adults.
Open one and check this card against it. If it disagrees, that is worth reporting.
Pharmacogenomics ancestry
Topic 22 of 67✓textbook
✓textbook
Someone read the assigned chapter and confirmed this card against it.
Ch. 6 for the ancestry framing and the two HLA-B alleles, Ch. 7 for the metabolism variants and their percentages. Note the direction on the prodrugs: a poor metaboliser gets LESS effect, not more toxicity — the opposite of the usual intuition, and the same reversal as on the drug interactions card.
Check it yourself: open Lehne's Pharmacotherapeutics 3rd ed. ch 1–10 and look up this topic. If it disagrees with the card, that is worth reporting — the textbook wins over the guide.
People inherit different versions of the enzymes that process drugs, and those versions cluster by ancestry. The result is either that the drug does not work as well, or that it becomes more dangerous.
Two gene variants are worth memorising, both more common in people of Asian ancestry:
HLA-B\*1502 plus carbamazepine can cause severe, life-threatening skin reactions. The FDA says test first.
HLA-B\*5701 plus abacavir can cause a fatal whole-body reaction.
Then there are drugs that arrive switched off and need the body to switch them on. If your enzymes cannot do it, the drug simply does not work — this is the opposite of what people expect:
Tamoxifen needs CYP2D6. Those who cannot convert it get very little protection — around 8 to 10 in 100 women of European ancestry, and up to 40 in 100 of Asian descent.
Clopidogrel needs CYP2C19. About a quarter of people have a version that barely works, leaving them under-protected against stroke and heart attack. They need a different drug.
Testing is compulsory before a couple of drugs, and recommended before warfarin and carbamazepine.
Some more detail worth having. The FDA now lists genetic markers in the package inserts of more than 250 drugs. Testing is required before maraviroc and trastuzumab, and recommended before warfarin and carbamazepine.
HLA-B\*1502 is almost entirely confined to people of Asian ancestry — it has never been found in people of European or Native American ancestry, and turns up in only 0.2% of people of African ancestry.
Two numbers to hold: women who cannot activate tamoxifen had their cancer come back 9.5 times as often in one study. And with isoniazid for tuberculosis, about 52% of Americans of European heritage break it down slowly and 48% quickly — get the dose wrong and the fast group is undertreated while the slow group is poisoned.
Variation in drug response by ancestry is GENETIC — and the commonest mechanism is altered drug metabolism.
The usual consequence is either reduced benefit or increased toxicity. The FDA lists pharmacogenomic biomarkers in the package inserts of more than 250 medications.
Where testing is REQUIRED versus recommended:
Drugs
Required before use
maraviroc (Selzentry), trastuzumab (Herceptin)
Recommended, not required
warfarin (Coumadin), carbamazepine (Tegretol)
The two ancestry-linked HLA-B alleles to know, both in people of Asian ancestry: HLA-B\1502 carries a risk of Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis with carbamazepine — the FDA recommends genotyping first. HLA-B\5701 carries a risk of fatal multiorgan hypersensitivity with abacavir. HLA-B\*1502 is almost exclusive to Asian ancestry: not identified in European or Native American ancestry, and 0.2% frequency in African ancestry.
Reduced benefit — the prodrug problem:
Tamoxifen must be converted to endoxifen by CYP2D6. Poor metabolisers get minimal benefit — recurrence 9.5 times higher in one study. Around 8–10 in 100 women of European ancestry carry such a variant, rising to as many as 40 in 100 of Asian descent.
Clopidogrel (Plavix) must be activated by CYP2C19. About 25% produce the variant CYP2C19\*2, get a weak antiplatelet response, and are at increased risk of stroke and MI — they should use a different antiplatelet drug.
Isoniazid: among Americans of European heritage about 52% metabolise slowly, 48% rapidly. Unadjusted, rapid metabolisers risk treatment failure and slow metabolisers risk toxicity.
Why prescribing cannot be cookie-cutter: guidelines matter, but they must be used judiciously against the unique characteristics of the individual.
Sources for this card
✓TextbookLehne ch06 §Individual variation in drug responses
States that ancestry-linked variation is genetic, and gives HLA-B1502 with carbamazepine and HLA-B5701 with abacavir in people of Asian ancestry, with the allele frequencies by ancestry.
✓TextbookLehne ch07 §Genetic variants that alter drug metabolism
Names altered metabolism as the commonest mechanism, gives the more than 250 biomarker-labelled drugs and which need required versus recommended testing, and works the tamoxifen, clopidogrel and isoniazid examples with their percentages.
Open one and check this card against it. If it disagrees, that is worth reporting.
Potentially inappropriate drugs in pediatric patients
Topic 23 of 67✓textbook
✓textbook
Someone read the assigned chapter and confirmed this card against it.
Ch. 9. The removals and the cough-and-cold exclusion are stated explicitly and are the counterintuitive parts — the card leads with them for that reason. Note the removals are about evidence quality, not about the drugs being reclassified as safe, and the card says so.
Check it yourself: open Lehne's Pharmacotherapeutics 3rd ed. ch 1–10 and look up this topic. If it disagrees with the card, that is worth reporting — the textbook wins over the guide.
The KIDs List does for children what the Beers list does for older adults: it names medicines that are probably a bad idea.
The tricky part is what was taken off it. Aspirin and the fluoroquinolone antibiotics used to be on it — aspirin because of Reye syndrome, fluoroquinolones because of tendon damage. They were removed because the evidence was not strong enough, not because anyone decided they were safe.
Over-the-counter cough and cold medicines are not on the list either, even though the American Academy of Pediatrics and the FDA both say not to give them to under-4s. The reason is that the children who were harmed had been given too much, rather than being harmed by the normal dose.
All of it exists because babies, especially in the first month, are genuinely not small adults.
Two laws exist to push drug research in children — the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act and the Pediatric Research Equity Act — and both were made permanent by the FDA Safety and Innovation Act of 2012.
The KIDs List — Key Potentially Inappropriate Drugs in Pediatrics. The paediatric answer to Beers.
Published in the Journal of Pediatric Pharmacology and Therapeutics, it exists because paediatric drug information is thin. Two statutes promoting research in children — the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act and the Pediatric Research Equity Act — were permanently reauthorised by the FDA Safety and Innovation Act of 2012.
Read what is NOT on the list, because that is where the exam question lives. Aspirin (Reye syndrome) and fluoroquinolones (tendon rupture) were REMOVED — not because they became safe, but because the supporting evidence was judged insufficient.
Also absent — OTC cough and cold medicines:
The American Academy of Pediatrics and the FDA both advise strongly against giving them to a child under 4.
They are still not on the KIDs List, because the hospitalisations and deaths came from overdoses rather than from the previously advised doses.
Why any of this is needed: an infant, and a neonate under 1 month most of all, handles drugs on entirely different terms from an adult, and prescribing is only safe if it allows for that.
Sources for this card
✓TextbookLehne ch09 §Drug therapy in pediatric patients
Introduces the KIDs List and its journal, names BPCA and PREA under the FDA Safety and Innovation Act of 2012, records the removal of aspirin and fluoroquinolones for insufficient evidence, and explains why OTC cough and cold medicines are excluded despite the AAP and FDA recommendation against use under age 4.
▣Course modulemodule wk1 §Key Points
Notes that neonates under four weeks and infants under a year have immature systems requiring different prescribing.
Open one and check this card against it. If it disagrees, that is worth reporting.
Hepatotoxic drugs
Topic 24 of 67✓textbook
✓textbook
Someone read the assigned chapter and confirmed this card against it.
Ch. 5's own §Hepatotoxic drugs. Two figures worth not garbling: fewer than 1 in 50,000 for liver failure, and more than 50 known hepatotoxic drugs. The acetaminophen-plus-two-or-three-drinks warning is the book's, at therapeutic dose.
Check it yourself: open Lehne's Pharmacotherapeutics 3rd ed. ch 1–10 and look up this topic. If it disagrees with the card, that is worth reporting — the textbook wins over the guide.
Some drugs get turned into something poisonous by the liver itself, and that product then damages the liver. Those are the hepatotoxic ones — over 50 of them.
In the US, medicines are the number one cause of sudden liver failure. But that is still rare — fewer than 1 in 50,000. Anything worse than that gets pulled off the market unless it is treating something life-threatening.
The one to remember is paracetamol, sold as Tylenol or acetaminophen. At a normal dose it is fine. Too much damages the liver. And here is the catch: a normal dose plus only two or three alcoholic drinks can cause serious liver damage.
Tell people what liver trouble feels like, and to get seen if it starts.
Drugs the liver converts into toxic products that then injure liver cells.
No other cause of sudden liver failure in the US is commoner than medicines. The condition is uncommon, but it can kill quickly.
But keep the scale straight:
Liver failure from a known hepatotoxic drug is rare — under 1 in 50,000.
Drugs that cause it more often than that are removed from the market, unless they treat a life-threatening illness.
More than 50 drugs are known to be hepatotoxic.
Acetaminophen (Tylenol) is the one to know. At therapeutic doses it does not usually risk liver injury. In excessive doses it damages the liver. And taken with just two or three alcoholic drinks, severe liver injury can result — at doses that would otherwise be fine.
That is the general principle: combining a hepatotoxic drug with certain other drugs raises the risk of liver damage beyond what either would do alone.
Educate patients about the signs of liver injury and tell them to seek medical attention if they appear.
Sources for this card
✓TextbookLehne ch05 §Hepatotoxic drugs
Defines hepatotoxic drugs by their conversion to toxic metabolites, names drugs as the leading cause of acute liver failure in the US, gives the under 1 in 50,000 incidence and the more-than-50-drugs count, and warns that therapeutic-dose acetaminophen with two or three alcoholic drinks can cause severe liver injury.
Open one and check this card against it. If it disagrees, that is worth reporting.
Drug selection
Topic 25 of 67✓textbook
✓textbook
Someone read the assigned chapter and confirmed this card against it.
Ch. 6 for the whole-patient point with the asthma and non-selective beta blocker example, body surface area, and the pre-1997 research gap; the course module for the definition of rational drug selection. The pre-1997 caveat is included because it changes how much confidence a guideline deserves, which is the card's point.
Check it yourself: open Lehne's Pharmacotherapeutics 3rd ed. ch 1–10 and look up this topic. If it disagrees with the card, that is worth reporting — the textbook wins over the guide.
Choosing a drug is three steps: work out what is actually wrong, pick the best treatment for this particular person, then check whether it worked and change it if it did not.
Treat the person, not just the diagnosis. Someone with asthma and high blood pressure can be given a blood-pressure drug that tightens their airways and makes the asthma worse. It was the right drug for the blood pressure and the wrong drug for them.
Other conditions they have, and other drugs those need.
Their size — doses are worked out from body surface area, not weight alone.
Their age, at both ends of life.
Their genetics.
How well their kidneys and liver work.
Guidelines are necessary but not enough on their own. Part of the reason is historical: drugs approved before 1997 were mostly tested on white men, so for a lot of everyday medicines nobody actually knows whether they behave differently in anyone else.
The asthma example is more specific than it looks: it is the non-selective beta blockers that tighten the airways, because they also hit receptors in the lungs. The selective ones largely do not — so this is not a warning about blood-pressure drugs in general.
On the research gap: the FDA pushed companies to include women in trials in 1997, and published wider diversity guidance in 2020.
A logical sequence, not a lookup: diagnose, choose, monitor.
Rational drug selection:
Formulate a diagnosis based on clinical reasoning.
Select the most appropriate pharmacological treatment.
Monitor it, and adjust.
Prescribe for the person, not the diagnosis in isolation. The book's case: give a non-selective β-adrenergic antagonist for hypertension to someone who also has asthma and, at a dose that narrows the airways, the asthma gets worse. A drug can be correct for the condition and wrong for the patient carrying it.
What shifts the choice:
Comorbidities — more conditions means more drugs, which means more chance of interaction.
Body size — the same dose reaches a higher concentration in a smaller person, so dose by body surface area rather than weight alone.
Age — infants and older adults are both more sensitive, for opposite reasons.
Ancestry and genetics — see pharmacogenomics.
Renal and hepatic function — the two organs that clear most drugs.
Guidelines are necessary and never sufficient. No guideline alone can be prescribed from; it has to be applied with judgement against what is particular about this one patient.
One structural caveat worth carrying: for drugs licensed before 1997, the trial populations were overwhelmingly cisgender, European-ancestry men. The FDA pushed companies to enrol women in 1997 and issued diversity guidance in 2020 — so for many long-established drugs, the evidence about how they behave in anyone else was simply never gathered.
Sources for this card
✓TextbookLehne ch06 §Individual variation in drug responses
Gives the asthma-plus-hypertension example for considering the whole patient, body surface area over weight for dosing, and the pre-1997 research base in cisgender men of European ancestry with the 1997 and 2020 FDA actions; states prescribing cannot be cookie-cutter from guidelines alone.
◆Slideswk1 s2
Frames ethical prescribing and interprofessional collaboration as part of choosing a drug.
▣Course modulemodule wk1 §Prescription Writing
Defines rational drug selection as diagnosis by clinical reasoning, then selecting and monitoring the most appropriate treatment.
Open one and check this card against it. If it disagrees, that is worth reporting.