Retrospective Bayesian Reanalysis of Single Gentamicin Concentrations: A Neonatal Case Series.

Staci L Hemmer, Sarah K Scoular
{"title":"Retrospective Bayesian Reanalysis of Single Gentamicin Concentrations: A Neonatal Case Series.","authors":"Staci L Hemmer, Sarah K Scoular","doi":"10.3390/medicines12020009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background/Objectives</b>: Nomograms for adjusting gentamicin therapy in neonates using a single concentration are limited. The Dersch-Mills nomogram is inefficient for short-duration therapies, while the NeoFax nomogram is outdated based on the current American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) guidelines. Bayesian software has shown accuracy for vancomycin in adults, but its performance for gentamicin in neonates is unclear. This study evaluates the accuracy of Bayesian estimation in predicting peak and trough gentamicin concentrations from a single measured level in neonates. <b>Methods</b>: A single-center, retrospective re-analysis was conducted of gentamicin concentrations in neonates. InsightRx<sup>®</sup> was used to estimate maximum and minimum concentrations in a dosing interval (Cmax and Cmin) based on a single peak or trough concentration. Bias and accuracy were characterized using the mean difference (MD) between estimated and measured concentrations and the 95% limits of agreement (LOA) for the differences (±1.96 × SD). <b>Results</b>: Fifty-seven neonates (73 peak/trough pairs) were analyzed. Median gestational age was 34 weeks and median postnatal age was 0 days. The MD (LOA) between Cmin estimates and measured troughs was 0.03 mg/L (-0.17 to 0.13) for the trough-only analysis and 0.21 mg/L (-0.38 to 0.8) for the peak-only analysis. The MD (LOA) between Cmax estimates and measured peaks was 0.16 mg/L (-3.2 to 3.3) for the trough-only analysis and 1.2 mg/L (-0.58 to 3.0) for the peak-only analysis. <b>Conclusions</b>: In neonates, a Bayesian analysis of a trough concentration produces reliable Cmin estimates but is not as accurate in estimating Cmax. Analyzing a peak concentration produces Cmax and Cmin values that overestimate true concentrations. If the goal of monitoring is to ensure sufficiently low troughs, a single-level analysis is reasonable if levels are drawn near the end of the dosing interval, but Cmin predictions based on levels drawn early in the dosing interval should be avoided.</p>","PeriodicalId":74162,"journal":{"name":"Medicines (Basel, Switzerland)","volume":"12 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12015869/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicines (Basel, Switzerland)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/medicines12020009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Nomograms for adjusting gentamicin therapy in neonates using a single concentration are limited. The Dersch-Mills nomogram is inefficient for short-duration therapies, while the NeoFax nomogram is outdated based on the current American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) guidelines. Bayesian software has shown accuracy for vancomycin in adults, but its performance for gentamicin in neonates is unclear. This study evaluates the accuracy of Bayesian estimation in predicting peak and trough gentamicin concentrations from a single measured level in neonates. Methods: A single-center, retrospective re-analysis was conducted of gentamicin concentrations in neonates. InsightRx® was used to estimate maximum and minimum concentrations in a dosing interval (Cmax and Cmin) based on a single peak or trough concentration. Bias and accuracy were characterized using the mean difference (MD) between estimated and measured concentrations and the 95% limits of agreement (LOA) for the differences (±1.96 × SD). Results: Fifty-seven neonates (73 peak/trough pairs) were analyzed. Median gestational age was 34 weeks and median postnatal age was 0 days. The MD (LOA) between Cmin estimates and measured troughs was 0.03 mg/L (-0.17 to 0.13) for the trough-only analysis and 0.21 mg/L (-0.38 to 0.8) for the peak-only analysis. The MD (LOA) between Cmax estimates and measured peaks was 0.16 mg/L (-3.2 to 3.3) for the trough-only analysis and 1.2 mg/L (-0.58 to 3.0) for the peak-only analysis. Conclusions: In neonates, a Bayesian analysis of a trough concentration produces reliable Cmin estimates but is not as accurate in estimating Cmax. Analyzing a peak concentration produces Cmax and Cmin values that overestimate true concentrations. If the goal of monitoring is to ensure sufficiently low troughs, a single-level analysis is reasonable if levels are drawn near the end of the dosing interval, but Cmin predictions based on levels drawn early in the dosing interval should be avoided.

单一庆大霉素浓度的回顾性贝叶斯再分析:新生儿病例系列。
背景/目的:使用单一浓度庆大霉素调整新生儿庆大霉素治疗的图是有限的。Dersch-Mills图对于短期治疗无效,而NeoFax图根据目前美国儿科学会(AAP)的指南已经过时。贝叶斯软件显示万古霉素在成人中的准确性,但其庆大霉素在新生儿中的表现尚不清楚。本研究评估了贝叶斯估计在预测庆大霉素浓度峰和谷的准确性,从一个单一的新生儿测量水平。方法:对新生儿庆大霉素浓度进行单中心、回顾性再分析。InsightRx®用于基于单个峰或谷浓度估计给药间隔(Cmax和Cmin)的最大和最小浓度。偏倚和准确性采用估计浓度和测量浓度之间的平均差(MD)和差异的95%一致限(LOA)(±1.96 × SD)来表征。结果:对57例新生儿(峰谷对73对)进行分析。中位胎龄34周,中位产后0天。Cmin估计值与测得的波谷之间的MD (LOA)仅为波谷分析为0.03 mg/L(-0.17至0.13),仅峰分析为0.21 mg/L(-0.38至0.8)。Cmax估计值与测量峰之间的MD (LOA)对于纯谷分析为0.16 mg/L(-3.2至3.3),对于纯峰分析为1.2 mg/L(-0.58至3.0)。结论:在新生儿中,谷浓度的贝叶斯分析产生可靠的Cmin估计,但在估计Cmax时不准确。分析峰值浓度会产生高估真实浓度的Cmax和Cmin值。如果监测的目标是确保足够低的波谷,那么在给药间隔接近结束时进行单水平分析是合理的,但应避免基于给药间隔早期的水平进行Cmin预测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信