Evaluation of Limited Sampling Strategies for Bayesian Estimation of Daptomycin Area Under the Concentration-Time Curve: A Short Communication.
Journal
Therapeutic drug monitoring
ISSN: 1536-3694
Titre abrégé: Ther Drug Monit
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7909660
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 08 2023
01 08 2023
Historique:
received:
23
08
2022
accepted:
08
10
2022
medline:
13
7
2023
pubmed:
3
2
2023
entrez:
2
2
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Increasing evidence supports daptomycin therapeutic drug monitoring. The author's reference center used to perform therapeutic drug monitoring in patients who receive high-dose daptomycin for bone and joint infections, with a three-sample strategy to estimate the daptomycin daily area under the concentration-time curve (AUC). The objective of this study was to evaluate simpler strategies based on only 2 or 1 sample(s). The authors used the BestDose software to estimate the daptomycin AUC after Bayesian posterior estimation of individual pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters at steady state. The reference AUC (AUC full ) was based on 3 samples obtained predose (T0) and approximately 1 hour (T1) and 6 hours (T6) after the start of a 30-minute infusion of IV daptomycin. It was compared with the AUC based on all possible 2-sample and 1-sample strategies. Bias, imprecision, regression, and Bland-Altman plots were used to assess the performance of the alternative strategies. Data from 77 patients were analyzed. The mean AUC full value was 936 ± 373 mg·h/L. The best 2-sample strategy was T0 + T6, with a mean prediction bias of 0.13 mg·h/L and absolute imprecision of 3%. The T0 + T1 strategy also performed well with a mean bias of -10 mg·h/L and imprecision of 3%. The best 1-sample strategy was the T6 sample only with a bias of 2.19 mg·h/L and imprecision of 6%. Bayesian estimation of daptomycin AUC based on a two-sample strategy was associated with negligible bias and imprecision compared with the author's usual three-sample strategy. The trough and peak strategy may shorten and simplify patient visits and reduce assay labor and costs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36728573
doi: 10.1097/FTD.0000000000001070
pii: 00007691-202308000-00014
doi:
Substances chimiques
Daptomycin
NWQ5N31VKK
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03134521']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
562-565Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
Osmon DR, Berbari EF, Berendt AR, et al. Executive summary: diagnosis and management of prosthetic joint infection: clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2013;56:1–10.
Louie A, Kaw P, Liu W, et al. Pharmacodynamics of daptomycin in a murine thigh model of Staphylococcus aureus infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2001;45:845–851.
Safdar N, Andes D, Craig WA. Vivo pharmacodynamic activity of daptomycin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2004;48:63–68.
Falcone M, Russo A, Cassetta MI, et al. Variability of pharmacokinetic parameters in patients receiving different dosages of daptomycin: is therapeutic drug monitoring necessary? J Infect Chemother. 2013;19:732–739.
Bhavnani SM, Rubino CM, Ambrose PG, et al. Daptomycin exposure and the probability of elevations in the creatine phosphokinase level: data from a randomized trial of patients with bacteremia and endocarditis. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;50:1568–1574.
Heitzmann J, Thoma Y, Bricca R, et al. Implementation and comparison of two pharmacometric tools for model-based therapeutic drug monitoring and precision dosing of daptomycin. Pharmaceutics. 2022;14:114.
Neely M, Philippe M, Rushing T, et al. Accurately achieving target busulfan exposure in children and adolescents with very limited sampling and the BestDose software. Ther Drug Monit. 2016;38:332–342.
Mann HB, Whitney DR. On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Ann Math Stat. 1947;18:50–60.
Ting LSL, Villeneuve E, Ensom MHH. Beyond cyclosporine: a systematic review of limited sampling strategies for other immunosuppressants. Ther Drug Monit. 2006;28:419–430.
Neely MN, Youn G, Jones B, et al. Are vancomycin trough concentrations adequate for optimal dosing?. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58:309–316.
Gao Y, Hennig S, Barras M. Monitoring of tobramycin exposure: what is the best estimation method and sampling time for clinical practice? Clin Pharmacokinet. 2019;58:389–399.
D'Argenio DZ. Optimal sampling times for pharmacokinetic experiments. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1981;9:739–756.
Jelliffe RW, Iglesias T, Hurst AK, et al. Individualising gentamicin dosage regimens. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1991;21:461–478.