TY - JOUR
T1 - Why we should sample sparsely and aim for a higher target: Lessons from model-based therapeutic drug monitoring of vancomycin in intensive care patients
AU - Guo, Tingjie
AU - van Hest, Reinier M.
AU - Fleuren, Lucas M.
AU - Roggeveen, Luca F.
AU - Bosman, Rob J.
AU - van der Voort, Peter H. J.
AU - Girbes, Armand R. J.
AU - Mathot, Ron A. A.
AU - van Hasselt, Johan G. C.
AU - Elbers, Paul W. G.
N1 - Funding Information: This work is part of the Right Dose, Right Now project by Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc and OLVG Oost, and was partially funded by the ZonMw Rational Pharmacotherapy program (grant ID: 80‐83600‐98‐40050). Retrospective data in this study were obtained from the Right Dose, Right Now model validation study (registration number 2017.152), which was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee at Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, and registered at OLVG hospital (registration number NL60826.029.17). We thank Ronald Driessen for kindly helping us with data extraction. Funding Information: This work is part of the Right Dose, Right Now project by Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc and OLVG Oost, and was partially funded by the ZonMw Rational Pharmacotherapy program (grant ID: 80-83600-98-40050). Retrospective data in this study were obtained from the Right Dose, Right Now model validation study (registration number 2017.152), which was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee at Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, and registered at OLVG hospital (registration number NL60826.029.17). We thank Ronald Driessen for kindly helping us with data extraction. Publisher Copyright: © 2020 The Authors. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Pharmacological Society
PY - 2021/3
Y1 - 2021/3
N2 - Aims: To explore the optimal data sampling scheme and the pharmacokinetic (PK) target exposure on which dose computation is based in the model-based therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) practice of vancomycin in intensive care (ICU) patients. Methods: We simulated concentration data for 1 day following four sampling schemes, Cmin, Cmax + Cmin, Cmax + Cmid-interval + Cmin, and rich sampling where a sample was drawn every hour within a dose interval. The datasets were used for Bayesian estimation to obtain PK parameters, which were used to compute the doses for the next day based on five PK target exposures: AUC24 = 400, 500, and 600 mg·h/L and Cmin = 15 and 20 mg/L. We then simulated data for the next day, adopting the computed doses, and repeated the above procedure for 7 days. Thereafter, we calculated the percentage error and the normalized root mean square error (NRMSE) of estimated against “true” PK parameters, and the percentage of optimal treatment (POT), defined as the percentage of patients who met 400 ≤ AUC24 ≤ 600 mg·h/L and Cmin ≤ 20 mg/L. Results: PK parameters were unbiasedly estimated in all investigated scenarios and the 6-day average NRMSE were 32.5%/38.5% (CL/V, where CL is clearance and V is volume of distribution) in the trough sampling scheme and 27.3%/26.5% (CL/V) in the rich sampling scheme. Regarding POT, the sampling scheme had marginal influence, while target exposure showed clear impacts that the maximum POT of 71.5% was reached when doses were computed based on AUC24 = 500 mg·h/L. Conclusions: For model-based TDM of vancomycin in ICU patients, sampling more frequently than taking only trough samples adds no value and dosing based on AUC24 = 500 mg·h/L lead to the best POT.
AB - Aims: To explore the optimal data sampling scheme and the pharmacokinetic (PK) target exposure on which dose computation is based in the model-based therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) practice of vancomycin in intensive care (ICU) patients. Methods: We simulated concentration data for 1 day following four sampling schemes, Cmin, Cmax + Cmin, Cmax + Cmid-interval + Cmin, and rich sampling where a sample was drawn every hour within a dose interval. The datasets were used for Bayesian estimation to obtain PK parameters, which were used to compute the doses for the next day based on five PK target exposures: AUC24 = 400, 500, and 600 mg·h/L and Cmin = 15 and 20 mg/L. We then simulated data for the next day, adopting the computed doses, and repeated the above procedure for 7 days. Thereafter, we calculated the percentage error and the normalized root mean square error (NRMSE) of estimated against “true” PK parameters, and the percentage of optimal treatment (POT), defined as the percentage of patients who met 400 ≤ AUC24 ≤ 600 mg·h/L and Cmin ≤ 20 mg/L. Results: PK parameters were unbiasedly estimated in all investigated scenarios and the 6-day average NRMSE were 32.5%/38.5% (CL/V, where CL is clearance and V is volume of distribution) in the trough sampling scheme and 27.3%/26.5% (CL/V) in the rich sampling scheme. Regarding POT, the sampling scheme had marginal influence, while target exposure showed clear impacts that the maximum POT of 71.5% was reached when doses were computed based on AUC24 = 500 mg·h/L. Conclusions: For model-based TDM of vancomycin in ICU patients, sampling more frequently than taking only trough samples adds no value and dosing based on AUC24 = 500 mg·h/L lead to the best POT.
KW - Bayesian estimation
KW - ICU patients
KW - TDM
KW - dose optimization
KW - model-based
KW - vancomycin
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85089498513&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.14498
DO - https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.14498
M3 - Article
C2 - 32715505
SN - 0306-5251
VL - 87
SP - 1234
EP - 1242
JO - British journal of clinical pharmacology
JF - British journal of clinical pharmacology
IS - 3
ER -