AIMS: This study aims to assess approaches to handle interoccasion variability (IOV) in a model-based therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) context, using a population pharmacokinetic model of coagulation factor VIII as example. METHODS: We assessed 5 model-based TDM approaches: empirical Bayes estimates (EBEs) from a model including IOV, with individualized doses calculated based on individual parameters either (i) including or (ii) excluding variability related to IOV; and EBEs from a model excluding IOV by (iii) setting IOV to zero, (iv) summing variances of interindividual variability (IIV) and IOV into a single IIV term, or (v) re-estimating the model without IOV. The impact of varying IOV magnitudes (0-50%) and number of occasions/observations was explored. The approaches were compared with conventional weight-based dosing. Predictive performance was assessed with the prediction error percentiles. RESULTS: When IOV was lower than IIV, the accuracy was good for all approaches (50th percentile of the prediction error [P50] <7.4%), but the precision varied substantially between IOV magnitudes (P97.5 61-528%). Approach (ii) was the most precise forecasting method across a wide range of scenarios, particularly in case of sparse sampling or high magnitudes of IOV. Weight-based dosing led to less precise predictions than the model-based TDM approaches in most scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the studied scenarios and theoretical expectations, the best approach to handle IOV in model-based dose individualization is to include IOV in the generation of the EBEs but exclude the portion of unexplained variability related to IOV in the individual parameters used to calculate the future dose.
AIMS: This study aims to assess approaches to handle interoccasion variability (IOV) in a model-based therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) context, using a population pharmacokinetic model of coagulation factor VIII as example. METHODS: We assessed 5 model-based TDM approaches: empirical Bayes estimates (EBEs) from a model including IOV, with individualized doses calculated based on individual parameters either (i) including or (ii) excluding variability related to IOV; and EBEs from a model excluding IOV by (iii) setting IOV to zero, (iv) summing variances of interindividual variability (IIV) and IOV into a single IIV term, or (v) re-estimating the model without IOV. The impact of varying IOV magnitudes (0-50%) and number of occasions/observations was explored. The approaches were compared with conventional weight-based dosing. Predictive performance was assessed with the prediction error percentiles. RESULTS: When IOV was lower than IIV, the accuracy was good for all approaches (50th percentile of the prediction error [P50] <7.4%), but the precision varied substantially between IOV magnitudes (P97.5 61-528%). Approach (ii) was the most precise forecasting method across a wide range of scenarios, particularly in case of sparse sampling or high magnitudes of IOV. Weight-based dosing led to less precise predictions than the model-based TDM approaches in most scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the studied scenarios and theoretical expectations, the best approach to handle IOV in model-based dose individualization is to include IOV in the generation of the EBEs but exclude the portion of unexplained variability related to IOV in the individual parameters used to calculate the future dose.
Authors: A Srivastava; A K Brewer; E P Mauser-Bunschoten; N S Key; S Kitchen; A Llinas; C A Ludlam; J N Mahlangu; K Mulder; M C Poon; A Street Journal: Haemophilia Date: 2012-07-06 Impact factor: 4.287
Authors: Simon D Harding; Joanna L Sharman; Elena Faccenda; Chris Southan; Adam J Pawson; Sam Ireland; Alasdair J G Gray; Liam Bruce; Stephen P H Alexander; Stephen Anderton; Clare Bryant; Anthony P Davenport; Christian Doerig; Doriano Fabbro; Francesca Levi-Schaffer; Michael Spedding; Jamie A Davies Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2018-01-04 Impact factor: 16.971
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: Mohammad H Alshaer; Sylvain Goutelle; Barbara A Santevecchi; Bethany R Shoulders; Veena Venugopalan; Kartikeya Cherabuddi; Jiajun Liu; Patrick J Kiel; Jason A Roberts; Fekade Bruck Sime; Marc H Scheetz; Michael N Neely; Charles A Peloquin Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2021-12-13 Impact factor: 5.938
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: Lena Klopp-Schulze; Anna Mueller-Schoell; Patrick Neven; Stijn L W Koolen; Ron H J Mathijssen; Markus Joerger; Charlotte Kloft Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2020-03-31 Impact factor: 5.810