School of Pharmacy, Pharmacy Australia Centre of Excellence, University of Queensland, 20 Cornwall Street, Woolloongabba, Brisbane, QLD, 4102, Australia.
Centre for Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, NSW, Australia.
Clin Pharmacokinet. 2018 Aug;57(8):1017-1027. doi: 10.1007/s40262-017-0610-9.
Bayesian forecasting (BF) methods for tobramycin dose individualisation has not seen widespread clinical adoption, despite being endorsed by clinical practice guidelines. Several freeware and commercial programmes using BF methods are available to support personalised dosing. This study evaluated exposure estimates, dose recommendations, and predictive performance compared with current clinical practice.
Data from 105 patients (50 adults and 55 children) with cystic fibrosis who received intravenous tobramycin treatment and had paired concentration-time measurements were analysed using (1) log-linear regression analysis, and (2) three BF programmes: TDMx, InsightRX, and DoseMe. Exposure estimates and dose recommendations were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Bland-Altman analysis. Predictive performance of BF programmes was compared based on bias and imprecision.
Median estimated tobramycin exposure with current clinical practice was significantly lower (87.8 vs. 92.5, 94.0 and 90.3 mg h l; p ≤ 0.01), hence median subsequent dose recommendations were significantly higher (10.1 vs. 9.4, 9.4 and 9.2 mg kg; p ≤ 0.01) compared with BF programmes. Furthermore, median relative dose-adjustment differences were higher in adults (> 10%) compared with children (4.4-7.8%), and differences in individual dose recommendations were > 20% on 19.1-27.4% of occasions. BF programmes showed low bias (< 7%) and imprecision (< 20%), and none of the programmes made consistently significantly different recommendations compared with each other.
On average, the predictions made by the BF programmes were similar, however substantial individual differences were observed for some patients. This suggests the need for detailed investigations of true tobramycin exposure.
贝叶斯预测(BF)方法在个体化妥布霉素剂量方面尚未得到广泛的临床应用,尽管临床实践指南对此表示认可。有几个免费和商业的程序使用 BF 方法来支持个性化给药。本研究评估了与当前临床实践相比,暴露估计值、剂量建议和预测性能。
对 105 名接受静脉注射妥布霉素治疗且有配对浓度-时间测量的囊性纤维化患者(50 名成人和 55 名儿童)的数据进行了分析,使用(1)对数线性回归分析,和(2)三种 BF 程序:TDMx、InsightRX 和 DoseMe。使用 Wilcoxon 符号秩检验和 Bland-Altman 分析比较暴露估计值和剂量建议。基于偏差和不精确性比较 BF 程序的预测性能。
当前临床实践的妥布霉素暴露中位数明显较低(87.8 与 92.5、94.0 和 90.3 mg h l;p ≤ 0.01),因此中位数随后的剂量建议明显较高(10.1 与 9.4、9.4 和 9.2 mg kg;p ≤ 0.01)与 BF 程序相比。此外,成人(>10%)的中位相对剂量调整差异高于儿童(4.4-7.8%),并且在 19.1-27.4%的情况下,个别剂量建议的差异>20%。BF 程序的偏差较小(<7%),不精确性较小(<20%),并且与彼此相比,没有一个程序的建议始终明显不同。
平均而言,BF 程序的预测结果相似,但对于一些患者观察到了显著的个体差异。这表明需要对妥布霉素的真实暴露进行详细调查。