Emily Brooks1, Susan E Tett2, Nicole M Isbel1,3, Brett McWhinney4, Christine E Staatz2. 1. School of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 2. School of Pharmacy, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 3. Department of Nephrology, The Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. 4. Department of Pathology, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bayesian forecasting-based limited sampling strategies (LSSs) for tacrolimus have not been evaluated for the prediction of subsequent tacrolimus exposure. This study examined the predictive performance of Bayesian forecasting programs/services for the estimation of future tacrolimus area under the curve (AUC) from 0 to 12 hours (AUC0-12) in kidney transplant recipients. METHODS: Tacrolimus concentrations were measured in 20 adult kidney transplant recipients, one month post-transplant, on two occasions one week apart. Twelve samples were taken pre-dose and 13 samples were taken post-dose at the specified times on the first and second sampling occasions, respectively. The predicted AUC0-12 (AUCpredicted) was estimated using Bayesian forecasting programs/services and data from both sampling occasions for each patient and compared with the fully measured AUC0-12 (AUCmeasured) calculated using the linear trapezoidal rule on the second sampling occasion. The bias [median percentage prediction error (MPPE)] and imprecision [median absolute prediction error (MAPE)] were determined. RESULTS: Three programs/services were evaluated using different LSSs (C0; C0, C1, C3; C0, C1, C2, C4; and all available concentrations). MPPE and MAPE for the prediction of fully measured AUC0-12 were <15% for each program/service (with the exclusion of when only C0 was used), when using estimated AUC from data on the same (second) occasion. The MPPE and MAPE for the prediction of a future fully measured AUC0-12 were <15% for two programs/services (and for the third when participants who had a tacrolimus dose change between sampling days were excluded), when the occasion 1-AUCpredicted, using C0, C1, and C3, was compared with the occasion 2-AUCmeasured. CONCLUSIONS: All three Bayesian forecasting programs/services evaluated had acceptable bias and imprecision for predicting a future AUC0-12, using tacrolimus concentrations at C0, C1, and C3, and could be used for the accurate prediction of tacrolimus exposure in adult kidney transplant recipients.
BACKGROUND: Bayesian forecasting-based limited sampling strategies (LSSs) for tacrolimus have not been evaluated for the prediction of subsequent tacrolimus exposure. This study examined the predictive performance of Bayesian forecasting programs/services for the estimation of future tacrolimus area under the curve (AUC) from 0 to 12 hours (AUC0-12) in kidney transplant recipients. METHODS:Tacrolimus concentrations were measured in 20 adult kidney transplant recipients, one month post-transplant, on two occasions one week apart. Twelve samples were taken pre-dose and 13 samples were taken post-dose at the specified times on the first and second sampling occasions, respectively. The predicted AUC0-12 (AUCpredicted) was estimated using Bayesian forecasting programs/services and data from both sampling occasions for each patient and compared with the fully measured AUC0-12 (AUCmeasured) calculated using the linear trapezoidal rule on the second sampling occasion. The bias [median percentage prediction error (MPPE)] and imprecision [median absolute prediction error (MAPE)] were determined. RESULTS: Three programs/services were evaluated using different LSSs (C0; C0, C1, C3; C0, C1, C2, C4; and all available concentrations). MPPE and MAPE for the prediction of fully measured AUC0-12 were <15% for each program/service (with the exclusion of when only C0 was used), when using estimated AUC from data on the same (second) occasion. The MPPE and MAPE for the prediction of a future fully measured AUC0-12 were <15% for two programs/services (and for the third when participants who had a tacrolimus dose change between sampling days were excluded), when the occasion 1-AUCpredicted, using C0, C1, and C3, was compared with the occasion 2-AUCmeasured. CONCLUSIONS: All three Bayesian forecasting programs/services evaluated had acceptable bias and imprecision for predicting a future AUC0-12, using tacrolimus concentrations at C0, C1, and C3, and could be used for the accurate prediction of tacrolimus exposure in adult kidney transplant recipients.
Authors: Christine E Staatz; Nicole M Isbel; Troels K Bergmann; Bente Jespersen; Niels Henrik Buus Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2021-12-10 Impact factor: 5.810