Tawanda Gumbo1, Jotam G Pasipanodya2, Klaus Romero3, Debra Hanna3, Eric Nuermberger4. 1. Center for Infectious Diseases Research and Experimental Therapeutics, Baylor Research Institute, Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, Texas Department of Medicine, University of Cape Town, Observatory, South Africa. 2. Center for Infectious Diseases Research and Experimental Therapeutics, Baylor Research Institute, Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. 3. Critical Path Institute, Tucson, Arizona. 4. Center for Tuberculosis Research, Division of Infectious Diseases, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The hollow fiber system model of tuberculosis (HFS-TB), in tandem with Monte Carlo experiments, represents a drug development tool (DDT) with the potential for use to develop tuberculosis treatment regimens. However, the predictive accuracy of the HFS-TB, or any other nonclinical DDT such as an animal model, has yet to be robustly evaluated. METHODS: To avoid hindsight bias, a literature search was performed to identify clinical studies published at least 6 months after HFS-TB experiments' quantitative predictions. Steps to minimize bias and for reporting systematic reviews were applied as outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Publications were scored for quality of evidence. Accuracy was calculated using the mean absolute percentage error, then summated with weighting assigned by sample size and quality-of-evidence score. Given the lack of a gold-standard tuberculosis DDT, the forecasting accuracy of a completely unreliable tool was also calculated from 1000 simulated experiments for a random or "total guesswork" model. RESULTS: The quantitative forecasting accuracy (95% confidence interval [CI]) for the "total guesswork" model was 15.6% (95% CI, 8.7%-22.5%); bias was -0.1% (95% CI, -2.5% to 2.2%). Twenty clinical studies were published after HFS-TB experiments predicted optimal drug exposures and doses, susceptibility breakpoints, and optimal combination regimens. Based on these clinical studies, the predictive accuracy of the HFS-TB was 94.4% (95% CI, 84.3%-99.9%), and bias was 1.8% (95% CI, -13.7% to 6.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The HFS-TB model is highly accurate at forecasting optimal drug exposures, doses, and dosing schedules for use in the clinic.
BACKGROUND: The hollow fiber system model of tuberculosis (HFS-TB), in tandem with Monte Carlo experiments, represents a drug development tool (DDT) with the potential for use to develop tuberculosis treatment regimens. However, the predictive accuracy of the HFS-TB, or any other nonclinical DDT such as an animal model, has yet to be robustly evaluated. METHODS: To avoid hindsight bias, a literature search was performed to identify clinical studies published at least 6 months after HFS-TB experiments' quantitative predictions. Steps to minimize bias and for reporting systematic reviews were applied as outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Publications were scored for quality of evidence. Accuracy was calculated using the mean absolute percentage error, then summated with weighting assigned by sample size and quality-of-evidence score. Given the lack of a gold-standard tuberculosis DDT, the forecasting accuracy of a completely unreliable tool was also calculated from 1000 simulated experiments for a random or "total guesswork" model. RESULTS: The quantitative forecasting accuracy (95% confidence interval [CI]) for the "total guesswork" model was 15.6% (95% CI, 8.7%-22.5%); bias was -0.1% (95% CI, -2.5% to 2.2%). Twenty clinical studies were published after HFS-TB experiments predicted optimal drug exposures and doses, susceptibility breakpoints, and optimal combination regimens. Based on these clinical studies, the predictive accuracy of the HFS-TB was 94.4% (95% CI, 84.3%-99.9%), and bias was 1.8% (95% CI, -13.7% to 6.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The HFS-TB model is highly accurate at forecasting optimal drug exposures, doses, and dosing schedules for use in the clinic.
Authors: E D Pieterman; S van den Berg; A van der Meijden; E M Svensson; H I Bax; J E M de Steenwinkel Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2021-03-18 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Natasha Van't Boveneind-Vrubleuskaya; Tatiana Seuruk; Kai van Hateren; Tridia van der Laan; Jos G W Kosterink; Tjip S van der Werf; Dick van Soolingen; Susan van den Hof; Alena Skrahina; Jan-Willem C Alffenaar Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2017-07-25 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Beatriz E Ferro; Shashikant Srivastava; Devyani Deshpande; Jotam G Pasipanodya; Dick van Soolingen; Johan W Mouton; Jakko van Ingen; Tawanda Gumbo Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2016-04-22 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Aaron J Heffernan; Fekade B Sime; Derek S Sarovich; Michael Neely; Yarmarly Guerra-Valero; Saiyuri Naicker; Kyra Cottrell; Patrick Harris; Katherine T Andrews; David Ellwood; Steven C Wallis; Jeffrey Lipman; Keith Grimwood; Jason A Roberts Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2020-08-20 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Sander P van Rijn; Shashikant Srivastava; Mireille A Wessels; Dick van Soolingen; Jan-Willem C Alffenaar; Tawanda Gumbo Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Devyani Deshpande; Jan-Willem C Alffenaar; Claudio U Köser; Keertan Dheda; Moti L Chapagain; Noviana Simbar; Thomas Schön; Marieke G G Sturkenboom; Helen McIlleron; Pooi S Lee; Thearith Koeuth; Stellah G Mpagama; Sayera Banu; Suporn Foongladda; Oleg Ogarkov; Suporn Pholwat; Eric R Houpt; Scott K Heysell; Tawanda Gumbo Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2018-11-28 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Alvaro A Ordonez; Hechuan Wang; Gesham Magombedze; Camilo A Ruiz-Bedoya; Shashikant Srivastava; Allen Chen; Elizabeth W Tucker; Michael E Urbanowski; Lisa Pieterse; E Fabian Cardozo; Martin A Lodge; Maunank R Shah; Daniel P Holt; William B Mathews; Robert F Dannals; Jogarao V S Gobburu; Charles A Peloquin; Steven P Rowe; Tawanda Gumbo; Vijay D Ivaturi; Sanjay K Jain Journal: Nat Med Date: 2020-02-17 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Beatriz E Ferro; Shashikant Srivastava; Devyani Deshpande; Jotam G Pasipanodya; Dick van Soolingen; Johan W Mouton; Jakko van Ingen; Tawanda Gumbo Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2016-05-23 Impact factor: 5.191