Dominic M H Tong, Maria-Stephanie A Hughes, Jasmine Hu, Jeffrey C Pearson, David W Kubiak, Brandon W Dionne, Jasmine H Hughes
{"title":"比较两样本对数线性暴露估计与贝叶斯模型告知的妥布霉素在囊性纤维化成人患者中的精确剂量。","authors":"Dominic M H Tong, Maria-Stephanie A Hughes, Jasmine Hu, Jeffrey C Pearson, David W Kubiak, Brandon W Dionne, Jasmine H Hughes","doi":"10.1128/aac.01040-24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Tobramycin dosing in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) is challenged by its high pharmacokinetic (PK) variability and narrow therapeutic window. Doses are typically individualized using two-sample log-linear regression (LLR) to quantify the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC). Bayesian model-informed precision dosing (MIPD) may allow dose individualization with fewer samples; however, the relative performance of these methods is unknown. This single-center retrospective analysis included adult patients with CF receiving tobramycin from 2015 to 2022. Tobramycin concentrations were predicted using LLR or Bayesian estimation with two population PK models (Hennig and Alghanem). Then, both methods were used to estimate the AUC for simulated patients. For Bayesian estimation, AUC estimation with flattened priors and limited sampling strategies were also assessed. Predictions were evaluated using normalized root mean square error (nRMSE), mean percent error (MPE), and accuracy. The data set included 70 treatment courses, with 32 not evaluable by LLR due to detection limits or timing issues. Bayesian estimation demonstrated worse accuracy (47.1%-50.7% vs 75.7%), higher MPE (24.2%-32.4% vs -2.4%), and higher nRMSE (35.0%-39.4% vs 24.8%) than LLR for peak concentrations but performed better on troughs (accuracy: 92.0%-92.9% vs 84.6%). Bayesian estimation with flattened priors and a single sample at 4 h was comparable to LLR performance, with better accuracy (42.9%-68.0% vs 41.1% LLR), comparable MPE (-2.3% to -3.7% vs -0.5%) and nRMSE (11.3%-21.6% vs 17.3%). Bayesian estimation with one concentration and flattened priors can match LLR prediction accuracy. However, popPK models must be improved to better estimate peak samples.</p>","PeriodicalId":8152,"journal":{"name":"Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy","volume":" ","pages":"e0104024"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11823644/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing two-sample log-linear exposure estimation with Bayesian model-informed precision dosing of tobramycin in adult patients with cystic fibrosis.\",\"authors\":\"Dominic M H Tong, Maria-Stephanie A Hughes, Jasmine Hu, Jeffrey C Pearson, David W Kubiak, Brandon W Dionne, Jasmine H Hughes\",\"doi\":\"10.1128/aac.01040-24\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Tobramycin dosing in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) is challenged by its high pharmacokinetic (PK) variability and narrow therapeutic window. Doses are typically individualized using two-sample log-linear regression (LLR) to quantify the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC). Bayesian model-informed precision dosing (MIPD) may allow dose individualization with fewer samples; however, the relative performance of these methods is unknown. This single-center retrospective analysis included adult patients with CF receiving tobramycin from 2015 to 2022. Tobramycin concentrations were predicted using LLR or Bayesian estimation with two population PK models (Hennig and Alghanem). Then, both methods were used to estimate the AUC for simulated patients. For Bayesian estimation, AUC estimation with flattened priors and limited sampling strategies were also assessed. Predictions were evaluated using normalized root mean square error (nRMSE), mean percent error (MPE), and accuracy. The data set included 70 treatment courses, with 32 not evaluable by LLR due to detection limits or timing issues. Bayesian estimation demonstrated worse accuracy (47.1%-50.7% vs 75.7%), higher MPE (24.2%-32.4% vs -2.4%), and higher nRMSE (35.0%-39.4% vs 24.8%) than LLR for peak concentrations but performed better on troughs (accuracy: 92.0%-92.9% vs 84.6%). Bayesian estimation with flattened priors and a single sample at 4 h was comparable to LLR performance, with better accuracy (42.9%-68.0% vs 41.1% LLR), comparable MPE (-2.3% to -3.7% vs -0.5%) and nRMSE (11.3%-21.6% vs 17.3%). Bayesian estimation with one concentration and flattened priors can match LLR prediction accuracy. However, popPK models must be improved to better estimate peak samples.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8152,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e0104024\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11823644/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.01040-24\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/10 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MICROBIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.01040-24","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
囊性纤维化(CF)患者的妥布霉素剂量受到其高药代动力学(PK)变异性和狭窄治疗窗口的挑战。剂量通常使用双样本对数线性回归(LLR)来量化浓度-时间曲线(AUC)下的面积。基于贝叶斯模型的精确剂量(MIPD)可以在较少的样本下实现剂量个性化;然而,这些方法的相对性能是未知的。这项单中心回顾性分析纳入了2015年至2022年接受妥布霉素治疗的成年CF患者。妥布霉素浓度预测使用LLR或贝叶斯估计与两个种群PK模型(Hennig和Alghanem)。然后,使用这两种方法估计模拟患者的AUC。对于贝叶斯估计,还评估了平坦先验和有限采样策略下的AUC估计。使用标准化均方根误差(nRMSE)、平均百分比误差(MPE)和准确性评估预测。数据集包括70个疗程,由于检测限制或时间问题,32个疗程无法用LLR评估。与LLR相比,贝叶斯估计对峰值浓度的准确率较低(47.1%-50.7%对75.7%),MPE较高(24.2%-32.4%对-2.4%),nRMSE较高(35.0%-39.4%对24.8%),但对波谷的准确率较好(准确率:92.0%-92.9%对84.6%)。具有平坦先验和4小时单个样本的贝叶斯估计与LLR性能相当,具有更好的准确性(42.9%-68.0% vs 41.1% LLR),可比较的MPE(-2.3%至-3.7% vs -0.5%)和nRMSE (11.3%-21.6% vs 17.3%)。单浓度、平坦先验的贝叶斯估计可以达到LLR的预测精度。然而,popPK模型必须改进才能更好地估计峰值样本。
Comparing two-sample log-linear exposure estimation with Bayesian model-informed precision dosing of tobramycin in adult patients with cystic fibrosis.
Tobramycin dosing in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) is challenged by its high pharmacokinetic (PK) variability and narrow therapeutic window. Doses are typically individualized using two-sample log-linear regression (LLR) to quantify the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC). Bayesian model-informed precision dosing (MIPD) may allow dose individualization with fewer samples; however, the relative performance of these methods is unknown. This single-center retrospective analysis included adult patients with CF receiving tobramycin from 2015 to 2022. Tobramycin concentrations were predicted using LLR or Bayesian estimation with two population PK models (Hennig and Alghanem). Then, both methods were used to estimate the AUC for simulated patients. For Bayesian estimation, AUC estimation with flattened priors and limited sampling strategies were also assessed. Predictions were evaluated using normalized root mean square error (nRMSE), mean percent error (MPE), and accuracy. The data set included 70 treatment courses, with 32 not evaluable by LLR due to detection limits or timing issues. Bayesian estimation demonstrated worse accuracy (47.1%-50.7% vs 75.7%), higher MPE (24.2%-32.4% vs -2.4%), and higher nRMSE (35.0%-39.4% vs 24.8%) than LLR for peak concentrations but performed better on troughs (accuracy: 92.0%-92.9% vs 84.6%). Bayesian estimation with flattened priors and a single sample at 4 h was comparable to LLR performance, with better accuracy (42.9%-68.0% vs 41.1% LLR), comparable MPE (-2.3% to -3.7% vs -0.5%) and nRMSE (11.3%-21.6% vs 17.3%). Bayesian estimation with one concentration and flattened priors can match LLR prediction accuracy. However, popPK models must be improved to better estimate peak samples.
期刊介绍:
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (AAC) features interdisciplinary studies that build our understanding of the underlying mechanisms and therapeutic applications of antimicrobial and antiparasitic agents and chemotherapy.