贝叶斯万古霉素模型之间的差异会影响危重患者的临床决策。

IF 1.8 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Asad E Patanwala, Danijela Spremo, Minji Jeon, Yann Thoma, Jan-Willem C Alffenaar, Sophie Stocker
{"title":"贝叶斯万古霉素模型之间的差异会影响危重患者的临床决策。","authors":"Asad E Patanwala,&nbsp;Danijela Spremo,&nbsp;Minji Jeon,&nbsp;Yann Thoma,&nbsp;Jan-Willem C Alffenaar,&nbsp;Sophie Stocker","doi":"10.1155/2022/7011376","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To assess the agreement in 24-hour area under the curve (AUC<sub>24</sub>) value estimates between commonly used vancomycin population pharmacokinetic models in the critically ill.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Adults admitted to intensive care who received intravenous vancomycin and had a serum vancomycin concentration available were included. AUC<sub>24</sub> values were determined using Tucuxi (revision cd7bd7a8) for dosing intervals with a vancomycin concentration using three models (Goti 2018, Colin 2019, and Thomson 2009) previously evaluated in the critically ill. AUC<sub>24</sub> values were categorized as subtherapeutic (<400 mg·h/L), therapeutic (400-600 mg·h/L), or toxic (>600 mg·h/L), assuming a minimum inhibitory concentration of 1 mg/L. AUC<sub>24</sub> value categorization was compared across the three models and reported as percent agreement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 466 AUC<sub>24</sub> values were estimated in 188 patients. Overall, 52%, 42%, and 47% of the AUC<sub>24</sub> values were therapeutic for the Goti, Colin, and Thomson models, respectively. The agreement of AUC<sub>24</sub> values between all three models was 48% (223/466), Goti-Colin 59% (193/466), Goti-Thomson 68% (318/466), and Colin-Thomson 67% (314/466).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In critically ill patients, vancomycin AUC<sub>24</sub> values obtained from different pharmacokinetic models are often discordant, potentially contributing to differences in dosing decisions. This highlights the importance of selecting the optimal model.</p>","PeriodicalId":46583,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Research and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9767744/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Discrepancies Between Bayesian Vancomycin Models Can Affect Clinical Decisions in the Critically Ill.\",\"authors\":\"Asad E Patanwala,&nbsp;Danijela Spremo,&nbsp;Minji Jeon,&nbsp;Yann Thoma,&nbsp;Jan-Willem C Alffenaar,&nbsp;Sophie Stocker\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2022/7011376\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To assess the agreement in 24-hour area under the curve (AUC<sub>24</sub>) value estimates between commonly used vancomycin population pharmacokinetic models in the critically ill.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Adults admitted to intensive care who received intravenous vancomycin and had a serum vancomycin concentration available were included. AUC<sub>24</sub> values were determined using Tucuxi (revision cd7bd7a8) for dosing intervals with a vancomycin concentration using three models (Goti 2018, Colin 2019, and Thomson 2009) previously evaluated in the critically ill. AUC<sub>24</sub> values were categorized as subtherapeutic (<400 mg·h/L), therapeutic (400-600 mg·h/L), or toxic (>600 mg·h/L), assuming a minimum inhibitory concentration of 1 mg/L. AUC<sub>24</sub> value categorization was compared across the three models and reported as percent agreement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 466 AUC<sub>24</sub> values were estimated in 188 patients. Overall, 52%, 42%, and 47% of the AUC<sub>24</sub> values were therapeutic for the Goti, Colin, and Thomson models, respectively. The agreement of AUC<sub>24</sub> values between all three models was 48% (223/466), Goti-Colin 59% (193/466), Goti-Thomson 68% (318/466), and Colin-Thomson 67% (314/466).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In critically ill patients, vancomycin AUC<sub>24</sub> values obtained from different pharmacokinetic models are often discordant, potentially contributing to differences in dosing decisions. This highlights the importance of selecting the optimal model.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46583,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Care Research and Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9767744/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Care Research and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/7011376\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/7011376","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评价危重患者常用万古霉素人群药代动力学模型24小时曲线下面积(AUC24)估计值的一致性。材料和方法:纳入接受静脉注射万古霉素且血清万古霉素浓度可用的重症监护成人。使用图库西(修订版cd7bd7a8)确定万古霉素浓度给药间隔的AUC24值,使用先前在危重患者中评估的三种模型(Goti 2018、Colin 2019和Thomson 2009)。假设最低抑制浓度为1 mg/L, AUC24值被归类为亚治疗(600 mg·h/L)。对三个模型的AUC24值分类进行比较,并以一致性百分比报告。结果:188例患者共获得466个AUC24值。总体而言,Goti、Colin和Thomson模型分别有52%、42%和47%的AUC24值具有治疗性。所有三个模型之间的AUC24值的一致性为48% (223/466),gott - colin 59% (193/466), gott - thomson 68%(318/466)和Colin-Thomson 67%(314/466)。结论:在危重患者中,不同药代动力学模型获得的万古霉素AUC24值往往不一致,这可能导致给药决策的差异。这突出了选择最优模型的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Discrepancies Between Bayesian Vancomycin Models Can Affect Clinical Decisions in the Critically Ill.

Discrepancies Between Bayesian Vancomycin Models Can Affect Clinical Decisions in the Critically Ill.

Discrepancies Between Bayesian Vancomycin Models Can Affect Clinical Decisions in the Critically Ill.

Purpose: To assess the agreement in 24-hour area under the curve (AUC24) value estimates between commonly used vancomycin population pharmacokinetic models in the critically ill.

Materials and methods: Adults admitted to intensive care who received intravenous vancomycin and had a serum vancomycin concentration available were included. AUC24 values were determined using Tucuxi (revision cd7bd7a8) for dosing intervals with a vancomycin concentration using three models (Goti 2018, Colin 2019, and Thomson 2009) previously evaluated in the critically ill. AUC24 values were categorized as subtherapeutic (<400 mg·h/L), therapeutic (400-600 mg·h/L), or toxic (>600 mg·h/L), assuming a minimum inhibitory concentration of 1 mg/L. AUC24 value categorization was compared across the three models and reported as percent agreement.

Results: Overall, 466 AUC24 values were estimated in 188 patients. Overall, 52%, 42%, and 47% of the AUC24 values were therapeutic for the Goti, Colin, and Thomson models, respectively. The agreement of AUC24 values between all three models was 48% (223/466), Goti-Colin 59% (193/466), Goti-Thomson 68% (318/466), and Colin-Thomson 67% (314/466).

Conclusion: In critically ill patients, vancomycin AUC24 values obtained from different pharmacokinetic models are often discordant, potentially contributing to differences in dosing decisions. This highlights the importance of selecting the optimal model.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Critical Care Research and Practice
Critical Care Research and Practice CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
审稿时长
14 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