Does calculation method matter for targeting vancomycin area under the curve?


Journal

The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy
ISSN: 1460-2091
Titre abrégé: J Antimicrob Chemother
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7513617

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
28 07 2022
Historique:
received: 16 11 2021
accepted: 13 04 2022
pubmed: 1 6 2022
medline: 2 8 2022
entrez: 31 5 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

To assess differences in vancomycin AUC estimates from two common, clinically applied first-order pharmacokinetic equation methods compared with Bayesian estimates. A cohort of patients who received vancomycin and therapeutic drug monitoring was studied. First-order population pharmacokinetic equations were used to guide initial empirical dosing. After receipt of the first dose, patients had peak and trough serum levels drawn and steady-state AUC was estimated using first-order pharmacokinetic equations as standard care. We subsequently created a Bayesian model and used individual Empirical Bayes Estimates to precisely calculate vancomycin AUC24-48, AUC48-72 and AUC72-96 in this cohort. AUC at steady state (AUCSS) differences from the first-order methods were compared numerically and categorically (i.e. below, within or above 400-600 mg·h/L) to Bayesian AUCs, which served as the gold standard. A total of 65 adult inpatients with 409 plasma samples were included in this analysis. A two-compartment intravenous infusion model with first-order elimination fit the data well. The mean of Bayesian AUC24-48 was not significantly different from AUC estimates from the two first-order pharmacokinetic equation methods (P = 0.68); however, Bayesian AUC48-72 and Bayesian AUC72-96 were both significantly different when compared with both first-order pharmacokinetic equation methods (P < 0.01 for each). At the patient level, categorical classifications of AUC estimates from the two first-order pharmacokinetic equation methods differed from categorizations derived from the Bayesian calculations. Categorical agreement was ∼50% between first-order and Bayesian calculations, with declining categorical agreement observed with longer treatment courses. Differences in categorical agreement between calculation methods could potentially result in different dose recommendations for the patient. Bayesian-calculated AUCs between 48-72 and 72-96 h intervals were significantly different from first-order pharmacokinetic method-estimated AUCs at steady state. The various calculation methods resulted in different categorical classification, which could potentially lead to erroneous dosing adjustments in approximately half of the patients.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35640658
pii: 6595568
doi: 10.1093/jac/dkac151
pmc: PMC9890897
doi:

Substances chimiques

Anti-Bacterial Agents 0
Vancomycin 6Q205EH1VU

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

2245-2250

Subventions

Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : R21 AI149026
Pays : United States

Informations de copyright

© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Références

Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2018 Dec 15;75(24):1986-1995
pubmed: 30333114
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017 Apr 24;61(5):
pubmed: 28289024
J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2004 Feb;31(1):75-107
pubmed: 15346853
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014 Jun;58(6):3162-7
pubmed: 24663017
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2021 Sep 17;65(10):e0106021
pubmed: 34339278
J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1976 Apr;4(2):183-95
pubmed: 950590
Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2014 Nov 20;77:50-7
pubmed: 24910345
Ann Pharmacother. 2011 Oct;45(10):1193-8
pubmed: 21896920
Ther Drug Monit. 1993 Oct;15(5):380-93
pubmed: 8249044
Clin Pharmacokinet. 1986 Jul-Aug;11(4):257-82
pubmed: 3530582
Pharmacotherapy. 2018 Dec;38(12):1174-1183
pubmed: 30362592
Trials. 2016 Mar 31;17:170
pubmed: 27029920
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Apr 10;70(8):1536-1545
pubmed: 31157370
Pharmacotherapy. 2022 Apr;42(4):284-291
pubmed: 35134264
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58(1):309-16
pubmed: 24165176
Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2020 May 19;77(11):835-864
pubmed: 32191793

Auteurs

Jack Chang (J)

Midwestern University College of Pharmacy, Department of Pharmacy Practice, Downers Grove, IL, USA.
Midwestern University College of Pharmacy, Pharmacometrics Center of Excellence, Downers Grove, IL, USA.
Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Department of Pharmacy, Chicago, IL, USA.

Dhara Patel (D)

Midwestern University College of Pharmacy, Department of Pharmacy Practice, Downers Grove, IL, USA.

Ana Vega (A)

Jackson Memorial Hospital, Department of Pharmacy, Miami, FL, USA.

Kimberly C Claeys (KC)

University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Emily L Heil (EL)

University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Marc H Scheetz (MH)

Midwestern University College of Pharmacy, Department of Pharmacy Practice, Downers Grove, IL, USA.
Midwestern University College of Pharmacy, Pharmacometrics Center of Excellence, Downers Grove, IL, USA.
Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Department of Pharmacy, Chicago, IL, USA.
Midwestern University College of Graduate Studies, Department of Pharmacology, Downers Grove, IL, USA.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH