Marc Burgard1, Indy Sandaradura2,3, Sebastiaan J van Hal4, Sonya Stacey1,5, Stefanie Hennig6. 1. School of Pharmacy, Pharmacy Australia Centre of Excellence, University of Queensland, 20 Cornwall Street, Woolloongabba, Brisbane, QLD, 4102, Australia. 2. Centre for Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, NSW, Australia. 3. St Vincent's Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 4. Department of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 5. Pharmacy Department, Children's Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service, Lady Cilento Children's Hospital, South Brisbane, QLD, Australia. 6. School of Pharmacy, Pharmacy Australia Centre of Excellence, University of Queensland, 20 Cornwall Street, Woolloongabba, Brisbane, QLD, 4102, Australia. s.hennig@uq.edu.au.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Bayesian forecasting (BF) methods for tobramycin dose individualisation has not seen widespread clinical adoption, despite being endorsed by clinical practice guidelines. Several freeware and commercial programmes using BF methods are available to support personalised dosing. This study evaluated exposure estimates, dose recommendations, and predictive performance compared with current clinical practice. METHODS: Data from 105 patients (50 adults and 55 children) with cystic fibrosis who received intravenous tobramycin treatment and had paired concentration-time measurements were analysed using (1) log-linear regression analysis, and (2) three BF programmes: TDMx, InsightRX, and DoseMe. Exposure estimates and dose recommendations were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Bland-Altman analysis. Predictive performance of BF programmes was compared based on bias and imprecision. RESULTS: Median estimated tobramycin exposure with current clinical practice was significantly lower (87.8 vs. 92.5, 94.0 and 90.3 mg h l-1; p ≤ 0.01), hence median subsequent dose recommendations were significantly higher (10.1 vs. 9.4, 9.4 and 9.2 mg kg-1; p ≤ 0.01) compared with BF programmes. Furthermore, median relative dose-adjustment differences were higher in adults (> 10%) compared with children (4.4-7.8%), and differences in individual dose recommendations were > 20% on 19.1-27.4% of occasions. BF programmes showed low bias (< 7%) and imprecision (< 20%), and none of the programmes made consistently significantly different recommendations compared with each other. CONCLUSIONS: On average, the predictions made by the BF programmes were similar, however substantial individual differences were observed for some patients. This suggests the need for detailed investigations of true tobramycin exposure.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Bayesian forecasting (BF) methods for tobramycin dose individualisation has not seen widespread clinical adoption, despite being endorsed by clinical practice guidelines. Several freeware and commercial programmes using BF methods are available to support personalised dosing. This study evaluated exposure estimates, dose recommendations, and predictive performance compared with current clinical practice. METHODS: Data from 105 patients (50 adults and 55 children) with cystic fibrosis who received intravenous tobramycin treatment and had paired concentration-time measurements were analysed using (1) log-linear regression analysis, and (2) three BF programmes: TDMx, InsightRX, and DoseMe. Exposure estimates and dose recommendations were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Bland-Altman analysis. Predictive performance of BF programmes was compared based on bias and imprecision. RESULTS: Median estimated tobramycin exposure with current clinical practice was significantly lower (87.8 vs. 92.5, 94.0 and 90.3 mg h l-1; p ≤ 0.01), hence median subsequent dose recommendations were significantly higher (10.1 vs. 9.4, 9.4 and 9.2 mg kg-1; p ≤ 0.01) compared with BF programmes. Furthermore, median relative dose-adjustment differences were higher in adults (> 10%) compared with children (4.4-7.8%), and differences in individual dose recommendations were > 20% on 19.1-27.4% of occasions. BF programmes showed low bias (< 7%) and imprecision (< 20%), and none of the programmes made consistently significantly different recommendations compared with each other. CONCLUSIONS: On average, the predictions made by the BF programmes were similar, however substantial individual differences were observed for some patients. This suggests the need for detailed investigations of true tobramycin exposure.
Authors: Lana Nezic; Adrian Derungs; Marcel Bruggisser; Sarah Tschudin-Sutter; Stephan Krähenbühl; Manuel Haschke Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2014-04-23 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Sebastian G Wicha; Martin G Kees; Alexander Solms; Iris K Minichmayr; Alexander Kratzer; Charlotte Kloft Journal: Int J Antimicrob Agents Date: 2015-01-10 Impact factor: 5.283
Authors: Hans Pottel; Liesbeth Hoste; Laurence Dubourg; Natalie Ebert; Elke Schaeffner; Bjørn Odvar Eriksen; Toralf Melsom; Edmund J Lamb; Andrew D Rule; Stephen T Turner; Richard J Glassock; Vandréa De Souza; Luciano Selistre; Christophe Mariat; Frank Martens; Pierre Delanaye Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2016-02-29 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Min Dong; Anna V Rodriguez; Chelsea A Blankenship; Gary McPhail; Alexander A Vinks; Lisa L Hunter Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2021-10-11 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Guillemette E Benoist; Maarten J van der Doelen; Rob Ter Heine; Nielka P van Erp; Niven Mehra Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2018-02-21 Impact factor: 4.335