A Model Averaging/Selection Approach Improves the Predictive Performance of Model-Informed Precision Dosing: Vancomycin as a Case Study
- PMID: 32996120
- DOI: 10.1002/cpt.2065
A Model Averaging/Selection Approach Improves the Predictive Performance of Model-Informed Precision Dosing: Vancomycin as a Case Study
Erratum in
-
Erratum: A Model Averaging/Selection Approach Improves the Predictive Performance of Model-Informed Precision Dosing: Vancomycin as a Case Study.Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2021 Nov;110(5):1401. doi: 10.1002/cpt.2353. Epub 2021 Jul 27. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2021. PMID: 34314510 No abstract available.
Abstract
Many important drugs exhibit substantial variability in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics leading to a loss of the desired clinical outcomes or significant adverse effects. Forecasting drug exposures using pharmacometric models can improve individual target attainment when compared with conventional therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). However, selecting the "correct" model for this model-informed precision dosing (MIPD) is challenging. We derived and evaluated a model selection algorithm (MSA) and a model averaging algorithm (MAA), which automates model selection and finds the best model or combination of models for each patient using vancomycin as a case study, and implemented both algorithms in the MIPD software "TDMx." The predictive performance (based on accuracy and precision) of the two algorithms was assessed in (i) a simulation study of six distinct populations and (ii) a clinical dataset of 180 patients undergoing TDM during vancomycin treatment and compared with the performance obtained using a single model. Throughout the six virtual populations the MSA and MAA (imprecision: 9.9-24.2%, inaccuracy: less than ± 8.2%) displayed more accurate predictions than the single models (imprecision: 8.9-51.1%; inaccuracy: up to 28.9%). In the clinical dataset, the predictive performance of the single models applying at least one plasma concentration varied substantially (imprecision: 28-62%, inaccuracy: -16 to 25%), whereas the MSA or MAA utilizing these models simultaneously resulted in unbiased and precise predictions (imprecision: 29% and 30%, inaccuracy: -5% and 0%, respectively). MSA and MAA approaches implemented in TDMx might thereby lower the burden of fit-for-purpose validation of individual models and streamline MIPD.
© 2020 The Authors. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.
References
-
- Liang, T.J. & Ghany, M.G. Therapy of hepatitis C - back to the future. N. Engl. J. Med. 370, 2043-2047 (2014).
-
- Marsousi, N. et al. Coadministration of ticagrelor and ritonavir: toward prospective dose adjustment to maintain an optimal platelet inhibition using the PBPK approach. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 100, 295-304 (2016).
-
- Mould, D., D’Haens, G. & Upton, R. Clinical decision support tools: the evolution of a revolution. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 99, 405-418 (2016).
-
- Vinks, A., Emoto, C. & Fukuda, T. Modeling and simulation in pediatric drug therapy: application of pharmacometrics to define the right dose for children. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 98, 298-308 (2015).
-
- Deitchman, A.N. The risk of treating populations instead of patients. CPT Pharmacometrics Syst. Pharmacol. 8, 256-258 (2019).
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical