Stijn W van Beek1, Rob Ter Heine2, Jan-Willem C Alffenaar3,4,5, Cecile Magis-Escurra6, Rob E Aarnoutse2, Elin M Svensson2,7. 1. Department of Pharmacy, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein zuid 10, 864, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Stijn.vanBeek@radboudumc.nl. 2. Department of Pharmacy, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein zuid 10, 864, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 3. School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 4. Westmead Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 5. Marie Bashir Institute of Infectious Diseases and Biosecurity, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 6. Department of Respiratory Diseases, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Pharmacy, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop and evaluate a population pharmacokinetic model and limited sampling strategy for isoniazid to be used in model-based therapeutic drug monitoring. METHODS: A population pharmacokinetic model was developed based on isoniazid and acetyl-isoniazid pharmacokinetic data from seven studies with in total 466 patients from three continents. Three limited sampling strategies were tested based on the available sampling times in the dataset and practical considerations. The tested limited sampling strategies sampled at 2, 4, and 6 h, 2 and 4 h, and 2 h after dosing. The model-predicted area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC24) and the peak concentration from the limited sampling strategies were compared to predictions using the full pharmacokinetic curve. Bias and precision were assessed using the mean error (ME) and the root mean square error (RMSE), both expressed as a percentage of the mean model-predicted AUC24 or peak concentration on the full pharmacokinetic curve. RESULTS: Performance of the developed model was acceptable and the uncertainty in parameter estimations was generally low (the highest relative standard error was 39% coefficient of variation). The limited sampling strategy with sampling at 2 and 4 h was determined as most suitable with an ME of 1.1% and RMSE of 23.4% for AUC24 prediction, and ME of 2.7% and RMSE of 23.8% for peak concentration prediction. For the performance of this strategy, it is important that data on both isoniazid and acetyl-isoniazid are used. If only data on isoniazid are available, a limited sampling strategy using 2, 4, and 6 h can be employed with an ME of 1.7% and RMSE of 20.9% for AUC24 prediction, and ME of 1.2% and RMSE of 23.8% for peak concentration prediction. CONCLUSIONS: A model-based therapeutic drug monitoring strategy for personalized dosing of isoniazid using sampling at 2 and 4 h after dosing was successfully developed. Prospective evaluation of this strategy will show how it performs in a clinical therapeutic drug monitoring setting.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop and evaluate a population pharmacokinetic model and limited sampling strategy for isoniazid to be used in model-based therapeutic drug monitoring. METHODS: A population pharmacokinetic model was developed based on isoniazid and acetyl-isoniazid pharmacokinetic data from seven studies with in total 466 patients from three continents. Three limited sampling strategies were tested based on the available sampling times in the dataset and practical considerations. The tested limited sampling strategies sampled at 2, 4, and 6 h, 2 and 4 h, and 2 h after dosing. The model-predicted area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC24) and the peak concentration from the limited sampling strategies were compared to predictions using the full pharmacokinetic curve. Bias and precision were assessed using the mean error (ME) and the root mean square error (RMSE), both expressed as a percentage of the mean model-predicted AUC24 or peak concentration on the full pharmacokinetic curve. RESULTS: Performance of the developed model was acceptable and the uncertainty in parameter estimations was generally low (the highest relative standard error was 39% coefficient of variation). The limited sampling strategy with sampling at 2 and 4 h was determined as most suitable with an ME of 1.1% and RMSE of 23.4% for AUC24 prediction, and ME of 2.7% and RMSE of 23.8% for peak concentration prediction. For the performance of this strategy, it is important that data on both isoniazid and acetyl-isoniazid are used. If only data on isoniazid are available, a limited sampling strategy using 2, 4, and 6 h can be employed with an ME of 1.7% and RMSE of 20.9% for AUC24 prediction, and ME of 1.2% and RMSE of 23.8% for peak concentration prediction. CONCLUSIONS: A model-based therapeutic drug monitoring strategy for personalized dosing of isoniazid using sampling at 2 and 4 h after dosing was successfully developed. Prospective evaluation of this strategy will show how it performs in a clinical therapeutic drug monitoring setting.
Authors: Marieke G G Sturkenboom; Onno W Akkerman; Richard van Altena; Wiel C M de Lange; Jos G W Kosterink; Tjip S van der Werf; Jan-Willem C Alffenaar Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2016-08-04 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Jotam G Pasipanodya; Helen McIlleron; André Burger; Peter A Wash; Peter Smith; Tawanda Gumbo Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2013-07-29 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: D P Parkin; S Vandenplas; F J Botha; M L Vandenplas; H I Seifart; P D van Helden; B J van der Walt; P R Donald; P P van Jaarsveld Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 1997-05 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Tawanda Gumbo; Arnold Louie; Weiguo Liu; David Brown; Paul G Ambrose; Sujata M Bhavnani; George L Drusano Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2007-04-16 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Ramesh Jayaram; Radha K Shandil; Sheshagiri Gaonkar; Parvinder Kaur; B L Suresh; B N Mahesh; R Jayashree; Vrinda Nandi; Sowmya Bharath; E Kantharaj; V Balasubramanian Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2004-08 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