Literature DB >> 27600031

Comparative Evaluation of the Predictive Performances of Three Different Structural Population Pharmacokinetic Models To Predict Future Voriconazole Concentrations.

Andras Farkas1,2, Gergely Daroczi3, Phillip Villasurda4, Michael Dolton5, Midori Nakagaki6, Jason A Roberts6,7,8,9.   

Abstract

Bayesian methods for voriconazole therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) have been reported previously, but there are only sparse reports comparing the accuracy and precision of predictions of published models. Furthermore, the comparative accuracy of linear, mixed linear and nonlinear, or entirely nonlinear models may be of high clinical relevance. In this study, models were coded into individually designed optimum dosing strategies (ID-ODS) with voriconazole concentration data analyzed using inverse Bayesian modeling. The data used were from two independent data sets, patients with proven or suspected invasive fungal infections (n = 57) and hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients (n = 10). Observed voriconazole concentrations were predicted whereby for each concentration value, the data available to that point were used to predict that value. The mean prediction error (ME) and mean squared prediction error (MSE) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated to measure absolute bias and precision, while ΔME and ΔMSE and their 95% CI were used to measure relative bias and precision, respectively. A total of 519 voriconazole concentrations were analyzed using three models. MEs (95% CI) were 0.09 (-0.02, 0.22), 0.23 (0.04, 0.42), and 0.35 (0.16 to 0.54) while the MSEs (95% CI) were 2.1 (1.03, 3.17), 4.98 (0.90, 9.06), and 4.97 (-0.54 to 10.48) for the linear, mixed, and nonlinear models, respectively. In conclusion, while simulations with the linear model were found to be slightly more accurate and similarly precise, the small difference in accuracy is likely negligible from the clinical point of view, making all three approaches appropriate for use in a voriconazole TDM program.
Copyright © 2016, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27600031      PMCID: PMC5075089          DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00970-16

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother        ISSN: 0066-4804            Impact factor:   5.191


  37 in total

Review 1.  Applying the right statistics: analyses of measurement studies.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 7.299

2.  Integrated population pharmacokinetic analysis of voriconazole in children, adolescents, and adults.

Authors:  Lena E Friberg; Patanjali Ravva; Mats O Karlsson; Ping Liu
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2012-03-19       Impact factor: 5.191

3.  Factors associated with overall and attributable mortality in invasive aspergillosis.

Authors:  Yasmine Nivoix; Michel Velten; Valérie Letscher-Bru; Alireza Moghaddam; Shanti Natarajan-Amé; Cécile Fohrer; Bruno Lioure; Karin Bilger; Philippe Lutun; Luc Marcellin; Anne Launoy; Guy Freys; Jean-Pierre Bergerat; Raoul Herbrecht
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2008-11-01       Impact factor: 9.079

4.  Observational study of the clinical efficacy of voriconazole and its relationship to plasma concentrations in patients.

Authors:  Peter F Troke; Hans P Hockey; William W Hope
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2011-07-18       Impact factor: 5.191

5.  Challenging recommended oral and intravenous voriconazole doses for improved efficacy and safety: population pharmacokinetics-based analysis of adult patients with invasive fungal infections.

Authors:  Andres Pascual; Chantal Csajka; Thierry Buclin; Saskia Bolay; Jacques Bille; Thierry Calandra; Oscar Marchetti
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2012-05-18       Impact factor: 9.079

Review 6.  Relevance of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modeling to clinical care of critically ill patients.

Authors:  Jurgen B Bulitta; Cornelia B Landersdorfer; Alan Forrest; Silvia V Brown; Michael N Neely; Brian T Tsuji; Arnold Louie
Journal:  Curr Pharm Biotechnol       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 2.837

Review 7.  Clinical relevance of genetic polymorphisms in the human CYP2C subfamily.

Authors:  J A Goldstein
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 4.335

8.  Comparison of the accuracy and precision of pharmacokinetic equations to predict free meropenem concentrations in critically ill patients.

Authors:  Gloria Wong; Andras Farkas; Rachel Sussman; Gergely Daroczi; William W Hope; Jeffrey Lipman; Jason A Roberts
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2014-12-15       Impact factor: 5.191

9.  Understanding variability with voriconazole using a population pharmacokinetic approach: implications for optimal dosing.

Authors:  Michael J Dolton; Gerd Mikus; Johanna Weiss; John E Ray; Andrew J McLachlan
Journal:  J Antimicrob Chemother       Date:  2014-02-18       Impact factor: 5.790

10.  Pharmacokinetics and safety of 14 days intravenous voriconazole in allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients.

Authors:  Roger J M Brüggemann; N M A Blijlevens; David M Burger; Barbara Franke; Peter F Troke; J Peter Donnelly
Journal:  J Antimicrob Chemother       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 5.790

View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  Optimising antimicrobial therapy through the use of Bayesian dosing programs.

Authors:  M L Avent; B A Rogers
Journal:  Int J Clin Pharm       Date:  2019-08-07

2.  Can Population Pharmacokinetics of Antibiotics be Extrapolated? Implications of External Evaluations.

Authors:  Yu Cheng; Chen-Yu Wang; Zi-Ran Li; Yan Pan; Mao-Bai Liu; Zheng Jiao
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2021-01       Impact factor: 6.447

3.  External evaluation of population pharmacokinetic models for voriconazole in Chinese adult patients with hematological malignancy.

Authors:  Weikun Huang; You Zheng; Huiping Huang; Yu Cheng; Maobai Liu; Nupur Chaphekar; Xuemei Wu
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2022-06-28       Impact factor: 3.064

Review 4.  Voriconazole: A Review of Population Pharmacokinetic Analyses.

Authors:  Changcheng Shi; Yubo Xiao; Yong Mao; Jing Wu; Nengming Lin
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 6.447

5.  Pharmacodynamic Target Attainment for Cefepime, Meropenem, and Piperacillin-Tazobactam Using a Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic-Based Dosing Calculator in Critically Ill Patients.

Authors:  Emily L Heil; David P Nicolau; Andras Farkas; Jason A Roberts; Kerri A Thom
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2018-08-27       Impact factor: 5.191

6.  Impact of CYP2C19 Genotype and Liver Function on Voriconazole Pharmacokinetics in Renal Transplant Recipients.

Authors:  Zi-Wei Li; Feng-Hua Peng; Miao Yan; Wu Liang; Xiao-Lei Liu; Yan-Qin Wu; Xiao-Bin Lin; Sheng-Lan Tan; Feng Wang; Ping Xu; Ping-Fei Fang; Yi-Ping Liu; Da-Xiong Xiang; Bi-Kui Zhang
Journal:  Ther Drug Monit       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 3.681

7.  Fuzzy Evaluation of Pharmacokinetic Models.

Authors:  Carlos Sepúlveda; Oscar Montiel; José M Cornejo Bravo; Roberto Sepúlveda
Journal:  Comput Intell Neurosci       Date:  2018-11-01
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.