Evaluation of the Robustness of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Coupled with Bayesian Forecasting of Busulfan with Regard to Inaccurate Documentation.
busulfan
pharmacometrics
sampling
therapeutic drug monitoring
Journal
Pharmaceutical research
ISSN: 1573-904X
Titre abrégé: Pharm Res
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8406521
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2021
Oct 2021
Historique:
received:
25
05
2021
accepted:
20
09
2021
pubmed:
20
10
2021
medline:
15
2
2022
entrez:
19
10
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Inaccurate documentation of sampling and infusion times is a potential source of error in personalizing busulfan doses using therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). Planned times rather than the actual times for sampling and infusion time are often documented. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the robustness of a limited sampling TDM of busulfan with regard to inaccurate documentation. A pharmacometric analysis was conducted in NONMEM® 7.4.3 and "R" by performing stochastic simulation and estimation with four, two and one sample(s) per patient on the basis of a one-compartment- (1CMT) and two-compartment (2CMT) population pharmacokinetic model. The dosing regimens consisted of i.v. busulfan (0.8 mg/kg) every 6 h (Q6H) or 3.2 mg/kg every 24 h (Q24H) with a 2 h- and 3 h infusion time, respectively. The relative prediction error (rPE) and relative root-mean-square error (rRmse) were calculated in order to determine the accuracy and precision of the individual AUC estimation. A noticeable impact on the estimated AUC based on a 1CMT-model was only observed if uncertain documentation reached ± 30 min (1.60% for Q24H and 2.19% for Q6H). Calculated rPEs and rRmse for Q6H indicate a slightly lower level of accuracy and precision when compared to Q24H. Spread of rPE's and rRmse for the 2CMT-model were wider and higher compared to estimations based on a 1CMT-model. The estimated AUC was not affected substantially by inaccurate documentation of sampling and infusion time. The calculated rPEs and rRmses of estimated AUC indicate robustness and reliability for TDM of busulfan, even in presence of erroneous records.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Inaccurate documentation of sampling and infusion times is a potential source of error in personalizing busulfan doses using therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). Planned times rather than the actual times for sampling and infusion time are often documented. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the robustness of a limited sampling TDM of busulfan with regard to inaccurate documentation.
METHODS
METHODS
A pharmacometric analysis was conducted in NONMEM® 7.4.3 and "R" by performing stochastic simulation and estimation with four, two and one sample(s) per patient on the basis of a one-compartment- (1CMT) and two-compartment (2CMT) population pharmacokinetic model. The dosing regimens consisted of i.v. busulfan (0.8 mg/kg) every 6 h (Q6H) or 3.2 mg/kg every 24 h (Q24H) with a 2 h- and 3 h infusion time, respectively. The relative prediction error (rPE) and relative root-mean-square error (rRmse) were calculated in order to determine the accuracy and precision of the individual AUC estimation.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A noticeable impact on the estimated AUC based on a 1CMT-model was only observed if uncertain documentation reached ± 30 min (1.60% for Q24H and 2.19% for Q6H). Calculated rPEs and rRmse for Q6H indicate a slightly lower level of accuracy and precision when compared to Q24H. Spread of rPE's and rRmse for the 2CMT-model were wider and higher compared to estimations based on a 1CMT-model.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The estimated AUC was not affected substantially by inaccurate documentation of sampling and infusion time. The calculated rPEs and rRmses of estimated AUC indicate robustness and reliability for TDM of busulfan, even in presence of erroneous records.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34664209
doi: 10.1007/s11095-021-03115-8
pii: 10.1007/s11095-021-03115-8
pmc: PMC8602150
doi:
Substances chimiques
Busulfan
G1LN9045DK
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1721-1729Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Clin Cancer Res. 2014 Feb 1;20(3):754-63
pubmed: 24218510
Bone Marrow Transplant. 2019 Dec;54(12):2013-2019
pubmed: 31160806
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2019 Sep;25(9):1890-1897
pubmed: 31136799
Lancet Haematol. 2016 Nov;3(11):e526-e536
pubmed: 27746112
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2015 Oct;80(4):618-29
pubmed: 25819742
Pharmacogenomics. 2015;16(14):1585-94
pubmed: 26419450
Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2009 Aug;5(8):957-69
pubmed: 19611402
Clin Pharmacokinet. 2020 Aug;59(8):1049-1061
pubmed: 32157629
Front Pharmacol. 2020 Mar 03;11:172
pubmed: 32194411
Crit Care. 2018 Dec 17;22(1):341
pubmed: 30558639
Bone Marrow Transplant. 2011 Nov;46(11):1418-25
pubmed: 21132026
Front Pharmacol. 2020 Jul 02;11:888
pubmed: 32714184
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2016 Nov;22(11):1915-1925
pubmed: 27481448
Ther Drug Monit. 2012 Oct;34(5):526-34
pubmed: 22846895
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2019 Oct;25(10):1286.e1-1286.e7
pubmed: 30872102
Hematol Oncol Stem Cell Ther. 2017 Jun;10(2):70-78
pubmed: 28408108
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018 Jul;84(7):1494-1504
pubmed: 29469189
J Clin Pharmacol. 2010 Nov;50(11):1292-300
pubmed: 20075185
Bone Marrow Transplant. 2017 Apr;52(4):580-587
pubmed: 27991894