Impact of model-informed precision dosing on achievement of vancomycin exposure targets in pediatric patients with cystic fibrosis.
children
cystic fibrosis
pharmacokinetics
therapeutic drug monitoring
vancomycin
Journal
Pharmacotherapy
ISSN: 1875-9114
Titre abrégé: Pharmacotherapy
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8111305
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2023
Oct 2023
Historique:
revised:
02
05
2023
received:
03
04
2023
accepted:
04
05
2023
medline:
23
10
2023
pubmed:
4
7
2023
entrez:
4
7
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Vancomycin is commonly used to treat acute pulmonary exacerbations in pediatric patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) and a history of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Optimizing vancomycin exposure during therapy is essential and area under-the-curve (AUC)-guided dosing is now recommended. Model-informed precision dosing (MIPD) utilizing Bayesian forecasting is a powerful approach that can support AUC-guided dose individualization. The objective of the current study was to examine the impact of implementing an AUC-guided dose individualization approach supported via a MIPD clinical decision support (CDS) tool on vancomycin exposure, target attainment rate, and safety in pediatric patients with CF treated with vancomycin during clinical care. A retrospective chart review was performed in patients with CF at a single children's hospital comparing pre- and post-implementation of a MIPD approach for vancomycin supported by a cloud-based, CDS tool integrated into the electronic health record (EHR). In the pre-MIPD period, vancomycin starting doses of 60 mg/kg/day (<13 years) or 45 mg/kg/day (≥13 years) were used. Dose adjustment was guided by therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) with a target trough 10-20 mg/L. In the post-MIPD period, starting dose and dose adjustment were based on the MIPD CDS tool predictions with a target 24 h AUC (AUC Overall, 23 patient courses were included in the pre-MIPD period and 21 patient courses in the post-MIPD period. In the post-MIPD period, an individualized MIPD starting dose resulted in 71% of patients achieving target AUC An MIPD approach implemented within a cloud-based, EHR-integrated CDS tool safely supported vancomycin AUC-guided dosing and resulted in high rates of target achievement.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Vancomycin is commonly used to treat acute pulmonary exacerbations in pediatric patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) and a history of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Optimizing vancomycin exposure during therapy is essential and area under-the-curve (AUC)-guided dosing is now recommended. Model-informed precision dosing (MIPD) utilizing Bayesian forecasting is a powerful approach that can support AUC-guided dose individualization. The objective of the current study was to examine the impact of implementing an AUC-guided dose individualization approach supported via a MIPD clinical decision support (CDS) tool on vancomycin exposure, target attainment rate, and safety in pediatric patients with CF treated with vancomycin during clinical care.
METHODS
METHODS
A retrospective chart review was performed in patients with CF at a single children's hospital comparing pre- and post-implementation of a MIPD approach for vancomycin supported by a cloud-based, CDS tool integrated into the electronic health record (EHR). In the pre-MIPD period, vancomycin starting doses of 60 mg/kg/day (<13 years) or 45 mg/kg/day (≥13 years) were used. Dose adjustment was guided by therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) with a target trough 10-20 mg/L. In the post-MIPD period, starting dose and dose adjustment were based on the MIPD CDS tool predictions with a target 24 h AUC (AUC
RESULTS
RESULTS
Overall, 23 patient courses were included in the pre-MIPD period and 21 patient courses in the post-MIPD period. In the post-MIPD period, an individualized MIPD starting dose resulted in 71% of patients achieving target AUC
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
An MIPD approach implemented within a cloud-based, EHR-integrated CDS tool safely supported vancomycin AUC-guided dosing and resulted in high rates of target achievement.
Substances chimiques
Vancomycin
6Q205EH1VU
Anti-Bacterial Agents
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1007-1014Informations de copyright
© 2023 Pharmacotherapy Publications, Inc.
Références
Flume PA, Mogayzel PJ, Robinson KA, et al. Cystic fibrosis pulmonary guidelines: treatment of pulmonary exacerbations. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2009;180(9):802-808.
Pettit RS, Peters SJ, McDade EJ, et al. Vancomycin dosing and monitoring in the treatment of cystic fibrosis: results of a National Practice Survey. J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther. 2017;22(6):406-411.
Rybak MJ, Le J, Lodise TP, et al. Therapeutic monitoring of vancomycin for serious methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections: a revised consensus guideline and review by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2020;77(11):835-864.
Pai MP, Neely M, Rodvold KA, Lodise TP. Innovative approaches to optimizing the delivery of vancomycin in individual patients. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2014;20(77):50-57.
Patel N, Pai MP, Rodvold KA, Lomaestro B, Drusano GL, Lodise TP. Vancomycin: we can't get there from here. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52(8):969-974.
Frymoyer A, Hersh AL, El-Komy MH, et al. Association between vancomycin trough concentration and area under the concentration-time curve in neonates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58(11):6454-6461.
Stockmann C, Hersh AL, Roberts JK, et al. Predictive performance of a vancomycin population pharmacokinetic model in neonates. Infect Dis Ther. 2015;4(2):187-198.
Frymoyer A, Schwenk HT, Zorn Y, et al. Model-informed precision dosing of vancomycin in hospitalized children: implementation and adoption at an academic Children's hospital. Front Pharmacol. 2020;11:551.
Le J, Bradley JS, Murray W, et al. Improved vancomycin dosing in children using area under the curve exposure. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2013;32(4):e155-e163.
Thomson AH, Staatz CE, Tobin CM, Gall M, Lovering AM. Development and evaluation of vancomycin dosage guidelines designed to achieve new target concentrations. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2009;63(5):1050-1057.
Sheiner LB, Beal SL. Some suggestions for measuring predictive performance. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1981 Aug;9(4):503-512.
Brendel K, Comets E, Laffont C, Mentré F. Evaluation of different tests based on observations for external model evaluation of population analyses. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2010;37(1):49-65.
Kidney Disease: Improving global outcomes (KDIGO) acute kidney injury work group. KDIGO clinical practice guideline for acute kidney injury. Kidney Int. 2012;2:1-138.
Küme T, Sağlam B, Ergon C, Sisman AR. Evaluation and comparison of Abbott Jaffe and enzymatic creatinine methods: could the old method meet the new requirements? J Clin Lab Anal. 2017;32(1):e22168.
Gupta DM, Boland RJ, Aron DC. The physician's experience of changing clinical practice: a struggle to unlearn. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):1-11.
Bates DW, Kuperman GJ, Wang S, et al. Ten commandments for effective clinical decision support: making the practice of evidence-based medicine a reality. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003;10(6):523-530.
Kannry J, McCullagh L, Kushniruk A, Mann D, Edonyabo D, McGinn TA. Framework for usable and effective clinical decision support: experience from the iCPR randomized clinical trial. eGEMs. 2015;3(2):1150.
Kawamoto K, Houlihan CA, Balas EA, Lobach DF. Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: a systematic review of trials to identify features critical to success. BMJ. 2005;330(7494):765.
Osheroff JA, Teich JM, Middleton B, Steen EB, Wright A, Detmer DE. A roadmap for National Action on clinical decision support. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007;14(2):141-145.
Miller K, Mosby D, Capan M, et al. Interface, information, interaction: a narrative review of design and functional requirements for clinical decision support. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018;25(5):585-592.
Kwan JL, Lo L, Ferguson J, et al. Computerised clinical decision support systems and absolute improvements in care: meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. BMJ. 2020;17(370):m3216.
Saseen JJ, Ripley TL, Bondi D, et al. ACCP clinical pharmacist competencies. Pharmacotherapy. 2017;37(5):630-636.
Alhameed AF, Khansa SA, Hasan H, Ismail S, Aseeri M. Bridging the gap between theory and practice; the active role of inpatient pharmacists in therapeutic drug monitoring. Pharmacy. 2019;7(1):20.
Cardile AP, Tan C, Lustik MB, et al. Optimization of time to initial vancomycin target trough improves clinical outcomes. SpringerPlus. 2015;4:364.
Chanas T, Hockman R, Rice T, Cox-Hall H, Mallow-Corbett S, Alexander BT. Clinical and procedural evaluation of a pharmacy pharmacokinetic consult service. J Pharm Pract. 2020;33(5):618-627.
Crumby T, Rinehart E, Carby MC, Kuhl D, Talati AJ. Pharmacokinetic comparison of nomogram-based and individualized vancomycin regimens in neonates. Am J Health-Syst Pharm. 2009;66(2):149-153.
Firman P, Tan KS, Clavarino A, et al. The development, implementation, and evaluation of a pharmacist-managed therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) Service for Vancomycin-a Pilot Study. Pharmacy. 2022;10(6):173.
Marquis KA, DeGrado JR, Labonville S, Kubiak DW, Szumita PM. Evaluation of a pharmacist-directed vancomycin dosing and monitoring pilot program at a tertiary Academic Medical Center. Ann Pharmacother. 2015;49(9):1009-1014.
Al Sulaiman K, Alshaya A, Aljuhani O, et al. The impact of early target attainment of vancomycin in critically ill patients with confirmed gram-positive infection: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Infect Dis. 2021;21(1):1-10.
Lodise TP, McKinnon PS, Swiderski L, Rybak MJ. Outcomes analysis of delayed antibiotic treatment for hospital-acquired Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;36(11):1418-1423.
Lodise TP, Drusano GL, Zasowski E, et al. Vancomycin exposure in patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections: how much is enough? Clin Infect Dis off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am. 2014 Sep 1;59(5):666-675.
Casapao AM, Lodise TP, Davis SL, et al. Association between vancomycin day 1 exposure profile and outcomes among patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infective endocarditis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;59(6):2978-2985.
Finch NA, Zasowski EJ, Murray KP, et al. A quasi-experiment to study the impact of vancomycin area under the concentration-time curve-guided dosing on vancomycin-associated nephrotoxicity. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017;61(12):e01293-e01217.
Neely MN, Kato L, Youn G, et al. Prospective trial on the use of trough concentration versus area under the curve to determine therapeutic vancomycin dosing. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2018;62(2):e02042-e02017.
D'Amico H, Wallace KL, Burgess D, et al. Acute kidney injury associated with area under the curve versus trough monitoring of vancomycin in obese patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2022;66(1):e0088621.