Stijn W van Beek1, Rob Ter Heine1, Ron J Keizer2, Cecile Magis-Escurra3, Rob E Aarnoutse1, Elin M Svensson4,5. 1. Department of Pharmacy, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 2. InsightRX, San Francisco, CA, USA. 3. Department of Respiratory Diseases, Radboud University Medical Center-Dekkerswald, Groesbeek, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Pharmacy, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Elin.Svensson@radboudumc.nl. 5. Department of Pharmaceutical Biosciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. Elin.Svensson@radboudumc.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This study proposes a model-informed approach for therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of rifampicin to improve tuberculosis (TB) treatment. METHODS: Two datasets from pulmonary TB patients were used: a pharmacokinetic study (34 patients, 373 samples), and TDM data (96 patients, 391 samples) collected at Radboud University Medical Center, The Netherlands. Nine suitable population pharmacokinetic models of rifampicin were identified in the literature and evaluated on the datasets. A model developed by Svensson et al. was found to be the most suitable based on graphical goodness of fit, residual diagnostics, and predictive performance. Prediction of individual area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to 24 h (AUC24) and maximum concentration (Cmax) employing various sampling strategies was compared with a previously established linear regression TDM strategy, using sampling at 2, 4, and 6 h, in terms of bias and precision (mean error [ME] and root mean square error [RMSE]). RESULTS: A sampling strategy using 2- and 4-h blood collection was selected to be the most suitable. The bias and precision of the two strategies were comparable, except that the linear regression strategy was more biased in prediction of the AUC24 than the model-informed approach (ME of 9.9% and 1.5%, respectively). A comparison of resulting dose advice, using predictions on a simulated dataset, showed no significant difference in sensitivity or specificity between the two methods. The model was successfully implemented in the InsightRX precision dosing platform. CONCLUSION: Blood sampling at 2 and 4 h, combined with model-based prediction, can be used instead of the currently used linear regression strategy, shortening the sampling by 2 h and one sampling point without performance loss while simultaneously offering flexibility in sampling times.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This study proposes a model-informed approach for therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of rifampicin to improve tuberculosis (TB) treatment. METHODS: Two datasets from pulmonary TB patients were used: a pharmacokinetic study (34 patients, 373 samples), and TDM data (96 patients, 391 samples) collected at Radboud University Medical Center, The Netherlands. Nine suitable population pharmacokinetic models of rifampicin were identified in the literature and evaluated on the datasets. A model developed by Svensson et al. was found to be the most suitable based on graphical goodness of fit, residual diagnostics, and predictive performance. Prediction of individual area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to 24 h (AUC24) and maximum concentration (Cmax) employing various sampling strategies was compared with a previously established linear regression TDM strategy, using sampling at 2, 4, and 6 h, in terms of bias and precision (mean error [ME] and root mean square error [RMSE]). RESULTS: A sampling strategy using 2- and 4-h blood collection was selected to be the most suitable. The bias and precision of the two strategies were comparable, except that the linear regression strategy was more biased in prediction of the AUC24 than the model-informed approach (ME of 9.9% and 1.5%, respectively). A comparison of resulting dose advice, using predictions on a simulated dataset, showed no significant difference in sensitivity or specificity between the two methods. The model was successfully implemented in the InsightRX precision dosing platform. CONCLUSION: Blood sampling at 2 and 4 h, combined with model-based prediction, can be used instead of the currently used linear regression strategy, shortening the sampling by 2 h and one sampling point without performance loss while simultaneously offering flexibility in sampling times.
Authors: Justin J Wilkins; Radojka M Savic; Mats O Karlsson; Grant Langdon; Helen McIlleron; Goonaseelan Pillai; Peter J Smith; Ulrika S H Simonsson Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2008-04-07 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Sarayut Janmahasatian; Stephen B Duffull; Susan Ash; Leigh C Ward; Nuala M Byrne; Bruce Green Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2005 Impact factor: 6.447
Authors: Sylvain Goutelle; Laurent Bourguignon; Pascal H Maire; Michael Van Guilder; John E Conte; Roger W Jelliffe Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2009-04-20 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Ramesh Jayaram; Sheshagiri Gaonkar; Parvinder Kaur; B L Suresh; B N Mahesh; R Jayashree; Vrinda Nandi; Sowmya Bharat; R K Shandil; E Kantharaj; V Balasubramanian Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Robin J Svensson; Katarina Niward; Lina Davies Forsman; Judith Bruchfeld; Jakob Paues; Erik Eliasson; Thomas Schön; Ulrika S H Simonsson Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2019-07-25 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Laurynas Mockeliunas; Lina Keutzer; Marieke G G Sturkenboom; Mathieu S Bolhuis; Lotte M G Hulskotte; Onno W Akkerman; Ulrika S H Simonsson Journal: Pharmaceutics Date: 2022-03-30 Impact factor: 6.525
Authors: Marieke G G Sturkenboom; Anne-Grete Märtson; Elin M Svensson; Derek J Sloan; Kelly E Dooley; Simone H J van den Elsen; Paolo Denti; Charles A Peloquin; Rob E Aarnoutse; Jan-Willem C Alffenaar Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2021-03-06 Impact factor: 6.447
Authors: Ka Ho Matthew Hui; Chung Yan Grace Lui; Ka Lun Alan Wu; Jason Chen; Yin Ting Cheung; Tai Ning Teddy Lam Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-05-05 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Stijn W van Beek; Rob Ter Heine; Jan-Willem C Alffenaar; Cecile Magis-Escurra; Rob E Aarnoutse; Elin M Svensson Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2021-02-22 Impact factor: 6.447
Authors: Christoph Lange; Rob Aarnoutse; Dumitru Chesov; Reinout van Crevel; Stephen H Gillespie; Hans-Peter Grobbel; Barbara Kalsdorf; Irina Kontsevaya; Arjan van Laarhoven; Tomoki Nishiguchi; Anna Mandalakas; Matthias Merker; Stefan Niemann; Niklas Köhler; Jan Heyckendorf; Maja Reimann; Morten Ruhwald; Patricia Sanchez-Carballo; Dominik Schwudke; Franziska Waldow; Andrew R DiNardo Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2020-10-08 Impact factor: 7.561
Authors: Budi O Susanto; Robin J Svensson; Elin M Svensson; Rob Aarnoutse; Martin J Boeree; Ulrika S H Simonsson Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2020-12-15 Impact factor: 9.079