最大后验贝叶斯方法的效果优于用于丁苯磺胺精确给药的非室间分析法。

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Jasmine H Hughes, Janel Long-Boyle, Ron J Keizer
{"title":"最大后验贝叶斯方法的效果优于用于丁苯磺胺精确给药的非室间分析法。","authors":"Jasmine H Hughes, Janel Long-Boyle, Ron J Keizer","doi":"10.1007/s10928-024-09915-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Dose personalization improves patient outcomes for many drugs with a narrow therapeutic index and high inter-individuality variability, including busulfan. Non-compartmental analysis (NCA) and model-based methods like maximum a posteriori Bayesian (MAP) approaches are two methods routinely used for dose optimization. These approaches vary in how they estimate patient-specific pharmacokinetic parameters to inform a dose and the impact of these differences is not well-understood. Using busulfan as an example application and area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) as a target exposure metric, these estimation methods were compared using retrospective patient data (N = 246) and simulated precision dosing treatment courses. NCA was performed with or without peak extension, and MAP Bayesian estimation was performed using either the one-compartment Shukla model or the two-compartment McCune model. All methods showed good agreement on real-world data (correlation coefficients of 0.945-0.998) as assessed by Bland-Altman plots, although agreement between NCA and MAP methods was higher during the first dosing interval (0.982-0.994) compared to subsequent dosing intervals (0.918-0.938). In dose adjustment simulations, both NCA and MAP estimated high target attainment (> 98%) although true simulated target attainment was lower for NCA (63-66%) versus MAP (91-93%). The largest differences in AUC estimation were due to different assumptions for the shape of the concentration curve during the infusion phase, followed by how the methods considered time-dependent clearance and concentration-time points collected in earlier intervals. In conclusion, although AUC estimates between the two methods showed good correlation, in a simulated study, MAP lead to higher target attainment. When changing from one method to another, or changing infusion duration and other factors, optimum estimated exposure targets may require adjusting to maintain a consistent exposure.</p>","PeriodicalId":16851,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics","volume":" ","pages":"279-288"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11136738/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Maximum a posteriori Bayesian methods out-perform non-compartmental analysis for busulfan precision dosing.\",\"authors\":\"Jasmine H Hughes, Janel Long-Boyle, Ron J Keizer\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10928-024-09915-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Dose personalization improves patient outcomes for many drugs with a narrow therapeutic index and high inter-individuality variability, including busulfan. Non-compartmental analysis (NCA) and model-based methods like maximum a posteriori Bayesian (MAP) approaches are two methods routinely used for dose optimization. These approaches vary in how they estimate patient-specific pharmacokinetic parameters to inform a dose and the impact of these differences is not well-understood. Using busulfan as an example application and area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) as a target exposure metric, these estimation methods were compared using retrospective patient data (N = 246) and simulated precision dosing treatment courses. NCA was performed with or without peak extension, and MAP Bayesian estimation was performed using either the one-compartment Shukla model or the two-compartment McCune model. All methods showed good agreement on real-world data (correlation coefficients of 0.945-0.998) as assessed by Bland-Altman plots, although agreement between NCA and MAP methods was higher during the first dosing interval (0.982-0.994) compared to subsequent dosing intervals (0.918-0.938). In dose adjustment simulations, both NCA and MAP estimated high target attainment (> 98%) although true simulated target attainment was lower for NCA (63-66%) versus MAP (91-93%). The largest differences in AUC estimation were due to different assumptions for the shape of the concentration curve during the infusion phase, followed by how the methods considered time-dependent clearance and concentration-time points collected in earlier intervals. In conclusion, although AUC estimates between the two methods showed good correlation, in a simulated study, MAP lead to higher target attainment. When changing from one method to another, or changing infusion duration and other factors, optimum estimated exposure targets may require adjusting to maintain a consistent exposure.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16851,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"279-288\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11136738/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10928-024-09915-w\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10928-024-09915-w","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对于治疗指数窄、个体间变异性大的许多药物(包括丁硫克百威)来说,剂量个性化可改善患者的治疗效果。非室分析(NCA)和基于模型的方法(如最大后验贝叶斯(MAP)方法)是两种常规用于剂量优化的方法。这些方法在估算患者特异性药代动力学参数以提供剂量信息方面各不相同,而这些差异的影响尚未得到充分了解。我们以丁胺磺吡啶为例,将浓度-时间曲线下面积(AUC)作为目标暴露指标,使用回顾性患者数据(N = 246)和模拟精确给药疗程对这些估算方法进行了比较。在有或没有峰值扩展的情况下进行 NCA,并使用一室舒克拉模型或二室麦库恩模型进行 MAP 贝叶斯估计。根据布兰-阿尔特曼图(Bland-Altman plots)的评估,所有方法在真实世界数据上都显示出良好的一致性(相关系数为 0.945-0.998),不过与随后的给药间隔(0.918-0.938)相比,NCA 和 MAP 方法在第一个给药间隔(0.982-0.994)的一致性更高。在剂量调整模拟中,NCA 和 MAP 估测的目标达标率都很高(> 98%),但 NCA 的真实模拟目标达标率(63-66%)低于 MAP(91-93%)。AUC 估计值的最大差异是由于对输注阶段浓度曲线形状的假设不同,其次是这些方法如何考虑随时间变化的清除率和在较早时间间隔内收集的浓度-时间点。总之,虽然两种方法之间的 AUC 估计值显示出良好的相关性,但在模拟研究中,MAP 的目标值更高。当从一种方法改为另一种方法,或改变输注持续时间和其他因素时,可能需要调整最佳估计暴露目标,以保持稳定的暴露量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Maximum a posteriori Bayesian methods out-perform non-compartmental analysis for busulfan precision dosing.

Maximum a posteriori Bayesian methods out-perform non-compartmental analysis for busulfan precision dosing.

Dose personalization improves patient outcomes for many drugs with a narrow therapeutic index and high inter-individuality variability, including busulfan. Non-compartmental analysis (NCA) and model-based methods like maximum a posteriori Bayesian (MAP) approaches are two methods routinely used for dose optimization. These approaches vary in how they estimate patient-specific pharmacokinetic parameters to inform a dose and the impact of these differences is not well-understood. Using busulfan as an example application and area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) as a target exposure metric, these estimation methods were compared using retrospective patient data (N = 246) and simulated precision dosing treatment courses. NCA was performed with or without peak extension, and MAP Bayesian estimation was performed using either the one-compartment Shukla model or the two-compartment McCune model. All methods showed good agreement on real-world data (correlation coefficients of 0.945-0.998) as assessed by Bland-Altman plots, although agreement between NCA and MAP methods was higher during the first dosing interval (0.982-0.994) compared to subsequent dosing intervals (0.918-0.938). In dose adjustment simulations, both NCA and MAP estimated high target attainment (> 98%) although true simulated target attainment was lower for NCA (63-66%) versus MAP (91-93%). The largest differences in AUC estimation were due to different assumptions for the shape of the concentration curve during the infusion phase, followed by how the methods considered time-dependent clearance and concentration-time points collected in earlier intervals. In conclusion, although AUC estimates between the two methods showed good correlation, in a simulated study, MAP lead to higher target attainment. When changing from one method to another, or changing infusion duration and other factors, optimum estimated exposure targets may require adjusting to maintain a consistent exposure.

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
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
4.00%
发文量
39
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Broadly speaking, the Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics covers the area of pharmacometrics. The journal is devoted to illustrating the importance of pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacometrics in drug development, clinical care, and the understanding of drug action. The journal publishes on a variety of topics related to pharmacometrics, including, but not limited to, clinical, experimental, and theoretical papers examining the kinetics of drug disposition and effects of drug action in humans, animals, in vitro, or in silico; modeling and simulation methodology, including optimal design; precision medicine; systems pharmacology; and mathematical pharmacology (including computational biology, bioengineering, and biophysics related to pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, orpharmacodynamics). Clinical papers that include population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationships are welcome. The journal actively invites and promotes up-and-coming areas of pharmacometric research, such as real-world evidence, quality of life analyses, and artificial intelligence. The Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics is an official journal of the International Society of Pharmacometrics.
×
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