View Article

Abstract

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring (TDM) plays a critical role in optimizing pharmacotherapy for drugs with narrow therapeutic indices and significant interpatient pharmacokinetic variability. Conventional TDM approaches primarily rely on centralized laboratory techniques such as High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) and Liquid Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), which are associated with high operational costs, prolonged turnaround times, and the requirement for skilled personnel. Recent advances in Lab-on-a-Chip (LOC) technology integrated with biosensing systems have emerged as promising alternatives for rapid, portable, and point-of-care drug monitoring. This review critically examines the integration of microfluidic platforms with electrochemical, optical, and mechanical biosensors for real-time therapeutic drug analysis. Key aspects including microscale fluid dynamics, substrate materials, fabrication techniques, and biorecognition elements such as antibodies, aptamers, and molecularly imprinted polymers are comprehensively discussed. The review further highlights on-chip sample preparation strategies, antifouling approaches, and detection mechanisms enabling high sensitivity with minimal sample volumes. Clinical applications involving antibiotics, antineoplastic agents, immunosuppressants, and antiepileptic drugs are evaluated with emphasis on analytical performance and translational relevance. Additionally, the role of smartphone connectivity, wearable biosensing, and artificial intelligence-driven dosing algorithms in modern TDM is explored. Despite substantial technological progress, challenges related to biofouling, manufacturing scalability, reagent stability, and regulatory validation continue to hinder widespread clinical implementation. Overall, LOC-integrated biosensors represent a transformative direction for personalized medicine by enabling decentralized, rapid, and data-driven therapeutic monitoring at the point of care.

Keywords

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring, Lab-on-a-Chip, Microfluidics, Biosensors, Pharmacokinetics, Point-of-Care Testing, Aptamers, Pharmacokinetics, Antifouling, Surface-Enhanced Raman Scattering

Introduction

The administration of pharmaceuticals is conventionally based on a "one-size-fits-all" paradigm, wherein dosing regimens are formulated from population averages derived during clinical trials. But this statistical average doesn't usually show what is really going on with a specific patient. Genetic polymorphisms in metabolizing enzymes (e.g., Cytochrome P450 isoenzymes), variations in body mass composition, organ function impairment (renal or hepatic), and concurrent medication use can result in significant inter-individual variability in drug absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME). [1]

This variability is clinically inconsequential for most drugs owing to an extensive therapeutic window. For a specific group of pharmacotherapeutic agents, though—those with a Narrow Therapeutic Index (NTI)—the difference between effectiveness and toxicity is very small. Therapeutic Drug Monitoring (TDM) is required in these situations. Therapeutic Drug Monitoring (TDM) is a clinical practice that involves measuring certain drugs at set times to keep their levels in a patient's blood steady. This helps to improve each patient's dosage regimen. [2]

TDM has always been a centralized process. Blood is taken from a vein, sent to a central lab, spun in a centrifuge to get plasma or serum, and then tested with expensive machines like High- Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) or Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). These methods are very sensitive and specific, but they have some big problems: they are expensive to run, need large sample volumes (mL), and take a long time to get results (TAT), from 24 to 72 hours. This delay makes it so that doctors have to make dosing decisions based on estimates instead of real-time data, which could put patients at risk of not getting the right amount of medicine or getting too much. [3,4]

The arrival of Micro Total Analysis Systems (μTAS), also called Lab-on-a-Chip (LOC), marks a big change. LOC devices shrink laboratory operations down to the size of a chip. They move fluids in the nano- to microliter range, which cuts down on the amount of reagents needed and the time it takes to analyze them. The combination of these microfluidic platforms with very sensitive biosensors—devices that turn a biological recognition event into a measurable signal—could bring TDM to the Point-of-Care (POC). This review looks at how these technologies are coming together, focusing on the materials, mechanisms, and medical uses that make this new era of monitoring possible. [5]

Theoretical Framework of Microfluidics

To understand the potential of LOC for TDM, one must first appreciate the physics governing fluid behavior at the microscale.

Fluid Dynamics at the Microscale

The way fluids act in microchannels is very different from how they act on a larger scale. The Reynolds number ($Re$), which is the ratio of inertial forces to viscous forces, is the main dimensionless quantity that controls this behavior. In microfluidic channels, the Reynolds number ($Re$) is usually very low ($Re \ll 1$), which causes laminar flow.

Implications for TDM:

When fluids flow in laminar flow, they do so in parallel streams without any turbulence. Diffusion is the only way to mix things, and it takes a long time. To make sure that the blood sample mixes well with the reagents before it gets to the sensor, TDM chips must have special "micromixers," like herringbone structures. [7]

Surface Tension:

When the surface area to volume ratio gets bigger, surface tension becomes the most important force. In "passive" microfluidics, capillary action moves blood through a device without the need for external pumps. This is a key feature for handheld TDM devices.[8]

Materials and Fabrication

The choice of material dictates the chip’s cost, optical properties, and compatibility with biological samples.

Polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS):

The most common material for academic prototyping because soft lithography is easy to use. PDMS lets light through and lets gas through. But it has a big problem when it comes to drug monitoring: it is a hydrophobic sponge that absorbs small hydrophobic drug molecules, which could make drug concentration seem lower than it really is. [9]

Thermoplastics (PMMA/Polycarbonate):

Commercial devices are better off with these hard plastics. They don't absorb drugs, can be made in large quantities using injection molding, and have great optical clarity for fluorescence detection. [10]

Paper:

Paper-based microfluidics ($\mu$PADs) are at the very low end of the price range. These devices use patterned hydrophobic wax barriers to move fluids through capillary action. They are less sensitive, but they are perfect for places with few resources. [11]

 

Table 1: Comparison of Substrate Materials for LOC-TDM Devices [12,13,14,15]

 

Material

Fabrication

Method

Advantages

Disadvantages

PDMS

Soft Lithography

Rapid prototyping; Gas permeable; Biocompatible.

Absorbs            small

hydrophobic drugs; High cost for mass production.

Thermoplastics (PMMA, COC)

Injection Molding / Hot Embossing

Scalable

manufacturing; Rigid; No drug absorption.

Requires           complex

equipment;       Less            gas permeability.

Glass/Silicon

Photolithography            / Etching

High                 chemical resistance;        Excellent

optical properties.

Expensive;        Brittle;

Complex           sealing processes.

Paper

Wax Printing

Extremely         low            cost;

Biodegradable; Passive pumping.

Lower sensitivity; Poor

limit     of         detection (LOD).

 

Biosensing Mechanisms in Loc

The "heart" of the LOC device is the biosensor. For TDM, the sensor must distinguish the specific drug molecule from a soup of plasma proteins, metabolites, and other medications.

Electrochemical Transduction

Electrochemical sensors are the dominant modality in LOC-TDM due to their miniaturization potential, low power requirements, and compatibility with opaque samples like whole blood. Amperometry: This method checks the current that comes from the oxidation or reduction of an electroactive species at a steady voltage. It works very well for drugs that are naturally electroactive, like acetaminophen or some chemotherapeutics. [16]

Voltammetry:

Differential Pulse Voltammetry (DPV) and Square Wave Voltammetry (SWV) are two methods that use a dynamic potential sweep. This makes it possible to find several drugs at once (multiplexing) by separating their oxidation peaks at different voltages.[17] Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy (EIS): EIS checks the sensor surface's resistance and capacitance. It is often used in "label-free" detection, where a drug binds to an antibody on the electrode, stopping electron transfer and raising impedance. This is very important for finding big biologic drugs. [18]

Optical Transduction

Optical sensors generally offer higher sensitivity but require more complex instrumentation (light sources, detectors).

Surface Plasmon Resonance (SPR):

SPR can tell when the refractive index changes near a metal surface, which is usually gold. The angle of least light reflection changes when drug molecules attach to receptors on the gold surface. LOC devices that use "nanoplasmonics" (LSPR) use gold nanoparticles to do this without heavy prisms, making it possible to monitor protein-drug interactions on the go. [19]

Surface-Enhanced Raman Scattering (SERS):

Raman spectroscopy gives a molecular "fingerprint" by looking at how molecules vibrate. When drug molecules stick to rough metal surfaces like silver or gold nanostars, the Raman signal gets stronger by a factor. This lets you find drugs even in complicated liquids like saliva. [20]

Biorecognition Elements

The specificity of the sensor depends on the molecule used to "capture" the drug.

Enzymes: Enzymes are less common for drugs than they are for glucose, unless the drug is a substrate for a specific enzyme, like Methotrexate and Dihydrofolate Reductase. [21] Antibodies: The best way to be specific. But antibodies are costly, unstable at room temperature, and easily denatured, which shortens the shelf life of LOC devices. [22] Aptamers: These are synthetic single-stranded DNA or RNA sequences that have been chosen to stick to a certain target. Aptamers are the future of TDM sensors because they are cheap to make, can be reused, and are stable at high temperatures. [23]

1.         Sample Preparation Strategies On Chip

One of the most significant barriers to POC TDM is the sample matrix. Blood is a non- Newtonian fluid rich in cells and proteins that foul sensors.

Plasma Separation

Most TDM therapeutic ranges are defined for plasma concentration, not whole blood. Therefore, the chip must filter out Red Blood Cells (RBCs).

Inertial Microfluidics:

By making channels with certain curves, lift forces can move larger RBCs to one side of the channel while plasma flows to the other. This separates the two without using filters. [24]

Trench Structures:

Trench Structures: Cells can get stuck in simple physical barriers called "weirs," but plasma can still get through. But these can get clogged (haemolysis), which can let out intracellular contents and ruin the test. [25]

The Biofouling Challenge

When blood touches a sensor, proteins like albumin and fibrinogen quickly stick to the surface,

 creating a "protein corona." This layer keeps the sensor from interacting with the drug, which causes the signal to drift.

Solution:

To fix this, LOC devices use antifouling coatings like zwitterionic polymers or polyethylene glycol (PEG). These hydrophilic layers make a hydration shell that keeps proteins from sticking, which makes the sensor last longer. [26]

Clinical Applications And Therapeutic Classes

The integration of LOC and biosensors has reached distinct levels of maturity across different drug classes.

Antibiotics: Combating Resistance and Toxicity

TDM of antibiotics is essential in two situations: preventing toxicity (e.g., Aminoglycosides, Vancomycin) and guaranteeing efficacy in critically ill patients with modified clearance (e.g., Beta-lactams).

Vancomycin:

It is used to treat MRSA infections, but it has a high risk of nephrotoxicity. Gowers et al. created a biosensor that uses microneedles to sit on the skin and keep an eye on Vancomycin in Interstitial Fluid (ISF) all the time. The device employs an aptamer-based electrochemical detection technique, exhibiting a latency of merely 10 minutes in relation to blood concentrations. [27]

Aminoglycosides:

Recent research has concentrated on quantifying Gentamicin levels. A paper-based microfluidic device employing a colorimetric assay has been validated, enabling a "Red/Green" safety readout for nurses in resource-limited environments. [28]

Beta-Lactams:

These drugs break down quickly, which makes central lab analysis unreliable. Integrated LOC devices that measure beta-lactamase activity have been made to measure the concentration of unbound (active) drugs in real time. This helps doctors decide how much medicine to give patients with septic shock. [29]

Antineoplastic Agents: Precision Oncology

Chemotherapy drugs have narrow windows and high toxicity.

Doxorubicin:

An anthracycline antibiotic that is used to treat cancer. It is electroactive, which means that it can be directly detected. Saghary et al. used Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes (SWCNTs) in a microfluidic channel to find Doxorubicin in serum. The nanotubes made it easier for electrons to move, which led to a Limit of Detection (LOD) of 0.6 nM, which is well below the toxic level. [30]

Methotrexate (MTX):

Utilized in elevated dosages for leukemia. Leucovorin "rescue" therapyis needed for toxicity based on MTX levels. Integrated SPR sensors have been created to keep track of how quickly MTX is being removed from the body in real time, which could shorten hospital stays. [31]

5-Fluorouracil (5-FU):

Genetic differences in the DPD enzyme can cause deadly 5-FU toxicity. A microfluidic chip that uses molecularly imprinted polymers (MIPs), which are plastic "molds" of the drug molecule, has been successfully tested for specific 5-FU detection in plasma. [32]

Immunosuppressants: Protecting the Graft

Post-transplant patients require lifelong TDM of drugs like Tacrolimus, Cyclosporine, and Sirolimus to prevent organ rejection.

The RBC Problem:

These drugs bind heavily to erythrocytes. A standard plasma chip will not work.

LOC Solution:

Engineers have used centrifugal forces to make automated "Lab-on-a-Disc" systems. The disc spins to separate the blood, mixes it with a lysis buffer to break the cells and release the drug, and then moves the sample to a chamber where it can be detected. This makes a four-hour lab process take only thirty minutes. [33]

Antiepileptics: Seizure Control

Phenytoin and Valproic Acid:

It is very important to keep things stable. The ultimate goal is to monitor people at home because they will probably have to take these drugs for the rest of their lives. Recent advancements encompass smartphone-integrated lateral flow assays (a fundamental type of LOC) that utilize the phone's camera to measure drug concentrations from a blood sample. [34]

Levetiracetam:

Researchers are making micro-cantilever sensors (mechanical detection) that bend when a drug sticks to the surface. Optical measurement of the amount of bending provides a label-free way to find this antiepileptic drug, which is becoming more common.[35]

 

Table 2: Key LOC-Biosensor Studies and Performance Metrics

Target Drug

Biosensing

Modality

Recognition

Element

Limit of Detection

(LOD)

Sample

Matrix

Vancomycin [27]

Electrochemical

(SWV)

Aptamer

80 nM

ISF / Plasma

Doxorubicin [30]

Electrochemical

(Amperometric)

DNA

Intercalation

0.6 nM

Serum

Methotrexate

[31]

Optical (SPR)

Antibody

1.5 nM

Plasma

 

The Digital Health Ecosystem: Connectivity And Ai

The "answer-out" feature of a LOC device is only useful if the data can be used. The Internet of Medical Things (IoMT) is a modern way to connect TDM devices.

Smartphone Integration

Smartphones are computers that are very powerful and have great cameras and internet access.

Optical Readout:

The smartphone camera acts as the detector for colorimetric paper chips. Custom apps adjust for the amount of light in the room and turn the color intensity into drug concentration. [39]

Power and Control:

You can use the USB-C port or the Near Field Communication (NFC) protocol on a phone to power electrochemical chips, so the disposable sensor doesn't need batteries. [40]

Artificial Intelligence and Dosing Algorithms

Raw concentration data is often insufficient. A measurement of "10 mg/L" means different things for different patients.

Bayesian Forecasting:

The TDM app uses AI algorithms to take sensor data, combine it with patient demographics (age, weight, creatinine), and use Bayesian priors to figure out what dose is needed next. This "closed-loop" system is the future of automated pharmacotherapy.[41]

Challenges And Translational Barriers

Even though these devices are scientifically beautiful, very few have made it to the market. There are still a few problems to solve.

Regulatory Complexity

Getting FDA approval for a quantitative diagnostic device is not easy. The device must demonstrate "substantial equivalence" to the gold standard (LC-MS/MS).

Matrix Effects:

A huge validation challenge is to show that the chip works the same for all patients, no matter what their hematocrit, lipid levels, or disease state is. [42]

Reagent Stability:

The chemistry must stay stable at room temperature for months if the device is for home use. This is what is causing the move toward aptamers and MIPs. [43]

Manufacturing Scalability

Soft lithography is very different from making a lot of chips in a university cleanroom.

Inter-chip Variability:

The signal can change if the thickness of the electrode or the width of the channel changes slightly. Quality control in the large-scale production of microfluidic channels is not as advanced as it is in the semiconductor industry. [44]

Integration of Fluidics and Electronics

A lot of "Lab-on-a-Chip" prototypes are really "Chip-in-a-Lab," which means they need outside syringe pumps to move the fluid. For a business to really succeed, it needs fully passive fluidics (capillary or vacuum-driven) that don't need any maintenance from the user. [45]

CONCLUSION

The combination of Lab-on-a-Chip technology and biosensors starts a new era in Therapeutic Drug Monitoring, one that is fast, easy to use, and tailored to each person. We break down the logistical barriers that keep TDM from reaching more patients by moving analysis from the central lab to the point of care.

New technologies in nanomaterials are making them more sensitive, and new technologies in passive microfluidics are making them easier to use. Switching from biological receptors (antibodies) to synthetic ones (aptamers, MIPs) should fix problems with stability and cost. Also, combining these physical devices with digital algorithms makes a strong feedback loop for precise dosing.

But getting from the lab to the bedside is not easy. The next important steps are to get past the "biofouling barrier," make sure the manufacturing quality is high, and deal with the rules and regulations. Once these problems are solved, LOC-TDM systems will probably go from being new research tools to important parts of everyday clinical practice. This will make sure that every patient gets the right dose at the right time every time.

REFERENCES

  1. Müller MJ, de Lange EC. Therapeutic drug monitoring: from the classic approach to the era of precision medicine. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2024;63(2):123-138.
  2. Kang JS, Lee MH. Overview of therapeutic drug monitoring. Korean J Intern Med. 2009;24(1):1-10.
  3. Shipkova M, Svinarov D. LC-MS/MS as a tool for TDM: Is it the gold standard? Clin Biochem. 2016;49(13):1009-1023.
  4. Darvish A, Ebrahimi A. Biosensors for therapeutic drug monitoring: a review. F1000Res. 2023;12:171.
  5. Sackmann EK, Fulton AL, Beebe DJ. The present and future role of microfluidics in biomedical research. Nature. 2014;507(7491):181-189.
  6. Squires TM, Quake SR. Microfluidics: Fluid physics at the nanoliter scale. Rev Mod Phys. 2005;77(3):977.
  7. Lee CY, Chang CL, Wang YN, Fu LM. Microfluidic mixing: a review. Int J Mol Sci. 2011;12(5):3263-3287.
  8. Berthier E, Young EW, Beebe D. Engineers are from PDMS-land, Biologists are from Polystyrenia. Lab Chip. 2012;12(7):1224-1237.
  9. Toepke MW, Beebe DJ. PDMS absorption of small molecules and consequences in microfluidic applications. Lab Chip. 2006;6(12):1484-1486.
  10. Gencturk E, Mutlu S, Ulgen KO. Microfluidic approaches for isolation, detection, and characterization of extracellular vesicles. Analyst. 2017;142:4028-4038.
  11. Cate DM, Adkins JA, Mettakoonpitak J, Henry CS. Recent developments in paper-based microfluidic devices. Anal Chem. 2015;87(1):19-41.
  12. McDonald JC, Whitesides GM. Poly(dimethylsiloxane) as a material for microfluidic rapid prototyping. Acc Chem Res. 2002;35(7):491-499.
  13. Tsao CW, DeVoe DL. Bonding of thermoplastic polymer microfluidics. Microfluid Nanofluid. 2009;6:1-16.
  14. Iliescu C, Taylor H, Avram M, et al. A practical guide for the fabrication of microfluidic devices using glass and silicon. Biomicrofluidics. 2012;6(1):016505.
  15. Martinez AW, Phillips ST, Butte MJ, Whitesides GM. Patterned paper as a platform for inexpensive, low-volume, portable bioassays. Angew Chem Int Ed. 2007;46(8):1318- 1320.
  16. Ronkainen NJ, Halsall HB, Heineman WR. Electrochemical biosensors. Chem Soc Rev.

010;39(5):1747-1763.

  1. Teymourian H, Parrilla M, Sempionatto JR, et al. Wearable electrochemical sensors for the monitoring of pharmaceutical compounds. ACS Sens. 2020;5(9):2679-2700.
  2. Randviir EP, Banks CE. Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy: an overview of bioanalytical applications. Anal Methods. 2013;5:1098-1115.
  3. Masson JF. Surface plasmon resonance clinical biosensors for medical diagnostics. ACS Sens. 2017;2(1):16-30.
  4. Zong C, Xu M, Xu LJ, et al. Surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy for bioanalysis: reliability and challenges. Chem Rev. 2018;118(10):4946-4980.
  5. Emnéus J, Gorton L. Enzyme based biosensors for drug analysis. Methods Enzymol. 2005;137:245-260.
  6. Byrne B, Stack E, Gilmartin N, et al. Antibody-based sensors: principles, problems and potential for detection of pathogens. Sensors. 2009;9(6):4407-4445.
  7. Jayasena SD. Aptamers: an emerging class of molecules that rival antibodies in diagnostics. Clin Chem. 1999;45(9):1628-1650.
  8. Di Carlo D. Inertial microfluidics. Lab Chip. 2009;9:3038-3046.
  9. Tripathi S, Kumar YV, Prabhakar A, et al. Passive blood plasma separation at the microscale: a review of design principles and microdevices. J Micromech Microeng. 2015;25(8):083001.
  10. Zhang X, Zhang Y. Antifouling coatings for electrochemical biosensors. Acc Chem Res. 2020;53(7):1435-1446.
  11. Gowers SAN, Freeman DM, Polyerino T, et al. High-resolution monitoring of antibiotics in interstitial fluid using a microneedle-based biosensor. Anal Chem. 2019;91(15):9944- 9951.
  12. Hasan MR, Hassan RY. Paper-based microfluidic device for rapid detection of gentamicin. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2021;413:123-132.
  13. Rawson TM, Sharma S, Holmes AH, Cass AE. Microneedle-based biosensors for real- time beta-lactam monitoring. Lancet Infect Dis. 2019;19(5):567-575.
  14. Saghary S, Shahrokhian S. Doxorubicin anticancer drug monitoring by ds-DNA-based electrochemical biosensor in clinical samples. Micromachines. 2021;12(7):808.
  15. Peláez EC, Rossi AM. Surface plasmon resonance biosensor for methotrexate monitoring. Sensors. 2018;18(3):890.
  16. Zaidi SA. Molecularly imprinted polymers for the detection of anticancer drugs. Drug Discov Today. 2020;25(1):15-24.

 

  1. Kim J, Komen JM. Lab-on-a-disc for fully automated extraction and detection of tacrolimus. Anal Chem. 2020;92(14):9856-9865.
  2. Mauk M, Song J. Lab-on-a-chip technologies for oral-based diagnostics. Oral Dis. 2018;24(5):675-680.
  3. Alvarez M, Tamayo J. Optical readout of microcantilever sensors. Sensors. 2009;9:835- 846.
  4. Harahap Y, Widianti A. Development of volumetric absorptive microsampling for analysis of phenytoin levels. J Appl Pharm Sci. 2022;12(4):101-109.
  5. Kaur A, Gupta S. Electrochemically driven optical and SERS immunosensor for the detection of a therapeutic cardiac drug. RSC Adv. 2022;12(15):9345-9355.
  6. Criscuolo F, Cantu F. Wearable sweat sensors for lithium monitoring in bipolar disorder. IEEE Sens J. 2021;21(6):7215-7223.
  7. Roda A, Michelini E. Smartphone-based biosensors: A critical review. Biosens Bioelectron. 2018;99:569-579.
  8. Steinberg MD, Kassal P. NFC-enabled smartphone-based electrochemical sensor. Talanta. 2015;143:32-39.
  9. Beshiri A, Amft O. Artificial intelligence in therapeutic drug monitoring. Drug Discov Today. 2023;28(5):103567.
  10. Ignatiadis M, Sotiropoulou G. Regulatory challenges for point-of-care devices. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2018;56(10):1653-1662.
  11. Mayer G. The chemical biology of aptamers. Angew Chem Int Ed. 2009;48(15):2672- 2689.
  12. Becker H. It's the economy, stupid: commercialization of microfluidics. Lab Chip. 2009;9:2119-2122.
  13. Chin CD, Linder V, Sia SK. Commercialization of microfluidic point-of-care diagnostic devices. Lab Chip. 2012;12(12):2118-2134.

Reference

  1. Müller MJ, de Lange EC. Therapeutic drug monitoring: from the classic approach to the era of precision medicine. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2024;63(2):123-138.
  2. Kang JS, Lee MH. Overview of therapeutic drug monitoring. Korean J Intern Med. 2009;24(1):1-10.
  3. Shipkova M, Svinarov D. LC-MS/MS as a tool for TDM: Is it the gold standard? Clin Biochem. 2016;49(13):1009-1023.
  4. Darvish A, Ebrahimi A. Biosensors for therapeutic drug monitoring: a review. F1000Res. 2023;12:171.
  5. Sackmann EK, Fulton AL, Beebe DJ. The present and future role of microfluidics in biomedical research. Nature. 2014;507(7491):181-189.
  6. Squires TM, Quake SR. Microfluidics: Fluid physics at the nanoliter scale. Rev Mod Phys. 2005;77(3):977.
  7. Lee CY, Chang CL, Wang YN, Fu LM. Microfluidic mixing: a review. Int J Mol Sci. 2011;12(5):3263-3287.
  8. Berthier E, Young EW, Beebe D. Engineers are from PDMS-land, Biologists are from Polystyrenia. Lab Chip. 2012;12(7):1224-1237.
  9. Toepke MW, Beebe DJ. PDMS absorption of small molecules and consequences in microfluidic applications. Lab Chip. 2006;6(12):1484-1486.
  10. Gencturk E, Mutlu S, Ulgen KO. Microfluidic approaches for isolation, detection, and characterization of extracellular vesicles. Analyst. 2017;142:4028-4038.
  11. Cate DM, Adkins JA, Mettakoonpitak J, Henry CS. Recent developments in paper-based microfluidic devices. Anal Chem. 2015;87(1):19-41.
  12. McDonald JC, Whitesides GM. Poly(dimethylsiloxane) as a material for microfluidic rapid prototyping. Acc Chem Res. 2002;35(7):491-499.
  13. Tsao CW, DeVoe DL. Bonding of thermoplastic polymer microfluidics. Microfluid Nanofluid. 2009;6:1-16.
  14. Iliescu C, Taylor H, Avram M, et al. A practical guide for the fabrication of microfluidic devices using glass and silicon. Biomicrofluidics. 2012;6(1):016505.
  15. Martinez AW, Phillips ST, Butte MJ, Whitesides GM. Patterned paper as a platform for inexpensive, low-volume, portable bioassays. Angew Chem Int Ed. 2007;46(8):1318- 1320.
  16. Ronkainen NJ, Halsall HB, Heineman WR. Electrochemical biosensors. Chem Soc Rev.

010;39(5):1747-1763.

  1. Teymourian H, Parrilla M, Sempionatto JR, et al. Wearable electrochemical sensors for the monitoring of pharmaceutical compounds. ACS Sens. 2020;5(9):2679-2700.
  2. Randviir EP, Banks CE. Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy: an overview of bioanalytical applications. Anal Methods. 2013;5:1098-1115.
  3. Masson JF. Surface plasmon resonance clinical biosensors for medical diagnostics. ACS Sens. 2017;2(1):16-30.
  4. Zong C, Xu M, Xu LJ, et al. Surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy for bioanalysis: reliability and challenges. Chem Rev. 2018;118(10):4946-4980.
  5. Emnéus J, Gorton L. Enzyme based biosensors for drug analysis. Methods Enzymol. 2005;137:245-260.
  6. Byrne B, Stack E, Gilmartin N, et al. Antibody-based sensors: principles, problems and potential for detection of pathogens. Sensors. 2009;9(6):4407-4445.
  7. Jayasena SD. Aptamers: an emerging class of molecules that rival antibodies in diagnostics. Clin Chem. 1999;45(9):1628-1650.
  8. Di Carlo D. Inertial microfluidics. Lab Chip. 2009;9:3038-3046.
  9. Tripathi S, Kumar YV, Prabhakar A, et al. Passive blood plasma separation at the microscale: a review of design principles and microdevices. J Micromech Microeng. 2015;25(8):083001.
  10. Zhang X, Zhang Y. Antifouling coatings for electrochemical biosensors. Acc Chem Res. 2020;53(7):1435-1446.
  11. Gowers SAN, Freeman DM, Polyerino T, et al. High-resolution monitoring of antibiotics in interstitial fluid using a microneedle-based biosensor. Anal Chem. 2019;91(15):9944- 9951.
  12. Hasan MR, Hassan RY. Paper-based microfluidic device for rapid detection of gentamicin. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2021;413:123-132.
  13. Rawson TM, Sharma S, Holmes AH, Cass AE. Microneedle-based biosensors for real- time beta-lactam monitoring. Lancet Infect Dis. 2019;19(5):567-575.
  14. Saghary S, Shahrokhian S. Doxorubicin anticancer drug monitoring by ds-DNA-based electrochemical biosensor in clinical samples. Micromachines. 2021;12(7):808.
  15. Peláez EC, Rossi AM. Surface plasmon resonance biosensor for methotrexate monitoring. Sensors. 2018;18(3):890.
  16. Zaidi SA. Molecularly imprinted polymers for the detection of anticancer drugs. Drug Discov Today. 2020;25(1):15-24.

 

  1. Kim J, Komen JM. Lab-on-a-disc for fully automated extraction and detection of tacrolimus. Anal Chem. 2020;92(14):9856-9865.
  2. Mauk M, Song J. Lab-on-a-chip technologies for oral-based diagnostics. Oral Dis. 2018;24(5):675-680.
  3. Alvarez M, Tamayo J. Optical readout of microcantilever sensors. Sensors. 2009;9:835- 846.
  4. Harahap Y, Widianti A. Development of volumetric absorptive microsampling for analysis of phenytoin levels. J Appl Pharm Sci. 2022;12(4):101-109.
  5. Kaur A, Gupta S. Electrochemically driven optical and SERS immunosensor for the detection of a therapeutic cardiac drug. RSC Adv. 2022;12(15):9345-9355.
  6. Criscuolo F, Cantu F. Wearable sweat sensors for lithium monitoring in bipolar disorder. IEEE Sens J. 2021;21(6):7215-7223.
  7. Roda A, Michelini E. Smartphone-based biosensors: A critical review. Biosens Bioelectron. 2018;99:569-579.
  8. Steinberg MD, Kassal P. NFC-enabled smartphone-based electrochemical sensor. Talanta. 2015;143:32-39.
  9. Beshiri A, Amft O. Artificial intelligence in therapeutic drug monitoring. Drug Discov Today. 2023;28(5):103567.
  10. Ignatiadis M, Sotiropoulou G. Regulatory challenges for point-of-care devices. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2018;56(10):1653-1662.
  11. Mayer G. The chemical biology of aptamers. Angew Chem Int Ed. 2009;48(15):2672- 2689.
  12. Becker H. It's the economy, stupid: commercialization of microfluidics. Lab Chip. 2009;9:2119-2122.
  13. Chin CD, Linder V, Sia SK. Commercialization of microfluidic point-of-care diagnostic devices. Lab Chip. 2012;12(12):2118-2134.

Photo
Dr. Shiv Shankar Hardenia
Corresponding author

IPS Academy College of Pharmacy, Rajendra Nagar, A.B. Road, Indore–452012, (M.P) India

Photo
Vilas baisane
Co-author

IPS Academy College of Pharmacy, Rajendra Nagar, A.B. Road, Indore–452012, (M.P) India

Photo
Dr. Dinesh kumar jain
Co-author

IPS Academy College of Pharmacy, Rajendra Nagar, A.B. Road, Indore–452012, (M.P) India

Vilas Baisane, Dr. Shiv Shankar Hardenia, Dr. Dinesh Kumar Jain, Lab-on-a-Chip Systems in Therapeutic Drug Monitoring: From Microfluidics to Precision Medicine, Int. J. of Pharm. Sci., 2026, Vol 4, Issue 5, 5519-5528, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20326640

More related articles
Formulation And In Vitro Evaluation Of Nystatin's ...
Pratikeswar Panda, Sagarika Mohapatra, Rakesh Sahoo, ...
Decoding Breast Cancer Complexity: Insights Into P...
Arnab Roy, K. Rajeswar Dutt, Ankita Singh, Mahesh Kumar Yadav, An...
Psoriasis: Comprehensive Review of Pathogenesis, C...
Neethu R , Dr.Rupesh pingale, Maseera Ashfeque chowguel, Vaishnav...
Related Articles
Design, Development and Evaluation of a Phyto-Nano Strctured Polyherbal Shampoo ...
Prasad Thorat, Dnyaneshwar Bhusal , Pratiksha Gadekar, Trupti Ghorpade , Prajakta Ghuge, ...
Design And Characterization Of In Situ Gel Formulations...
Ankit Arun Kumar Jaiswal, Harshada Shankar Chavan, Ashwini Bhimashankar Karnakoti, Dr. Amol Borade, ...
Formulation And In Vitro Evaluation Of Nystatin's In Liposomal Drug Delivery Sys...
Pratikeswar Panda, Sagarika Mohapatra, Rakesh Sahoo, ...
More related articles
Formulation And In Vitro Evaluation Of Nystatin's In Liposomal Drug Delivery Sys...
Pratikeswar Panda, Sagarika Mohapatra, Rakesh Sahoo, ...
Decoding Breast Cancer Complexity: Insights Into Pathogenesis And Emerging Treat...
Arnab Roy, K. Rajeswar Dutt, Ankita Singh, Mahesh Kumar Yadav, Anupama Kumari, Anjali Raj, Umaira Sa...
Psoriasis: Comprehensive Review of Pathogenesis, Clinical Manifestations, and Ad...
Neethu R , Dr.Rupesh pingale, Maseera Ashfeque chowguel, Vaishnavi Sanjay chikhale, Tanishka tandel,...
Formulation And In Vitro Evaluation Of Nystatin's In Liposomal Drug Delivery Sys...
Pratikeswar Panda, Sagarika Mohapatra, Rakesh Sahoo, ...
Decoding Breast Cancer Complexity: Insights Into Pathogenesis And Emerging Treat...
Arnab Roy, K. Rajeswar Dutt, Ankita Singh, Mahesh Kumar Yadav, Anupama Kumari, Anjali Raj, Umaira Sa...
Psoriasis: Comprehensive Review of Pathogenesis, Clinical Manifestations, and Ad...
Neethu R , Dr.Rupesh pingale, Maseera Ashfeque chowguel, Vaishnavi Sanjay chikhale, Tanishka tandel,...