Back to Search Start Over

Towards model-informed precision dosing of piperacillin: multicenter systematic external evaluation of pharmacokinetic models in critically ill adults with a focus on Bayesian forecasting.

Authors :
Greppmair, Sebastian
Brinkmann, Alexander
Roehr, Anka
Frey, Otto
Hagel, Stefan
Dorn, Christoph
Marsot, Amélie
El-Haffaf, Ibrahim
Zoller, Michael
Saller, Thomas
Zander, Johannes
Schatz, Lea Marie
Scharf, Christina
Briegel, Josef
Minichmayr, Iris K.
Wicha, Sebastian G.
Liebchen, Uwe
Source :
Intensive Care Medicine. Aug2023, Vol. 49 Issue 8, p966-976. 11p. 1 Chart, 4 Graphs.
Publication Year :
2023

Abstract

Purpose: Inadequate piperacillin (PIP) exposure in intensive care unit (ICU) patients threatens therapeutic success. Model-informed precision dosing (MIPD) might be promising to individualize dosing; however, the transferability of published models to external populations is uncertain. This study aimed to externally evaluate the available PIP population pharmacokinetic (PopPK) models. Methods: A multicenter dataset of 561 ICU patients (11 centers/3654 concentrations) was used for the evaluation of 24 identified models. Model performance was investigated for a priori (A) predictions, i.e., considering dosing records and patient characteristics only, and for Bayesian forecasting, i.e., additionally including the first (B1) or first and second (B2) therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) samples per patient. Median relative prediction error (MPE) [%] and median absolute relative prediction error (MAPE) [%] were calculated to quantify accuracy and precision. Results: The evaluation revealed a large inter-model variability (A: MPE − 135.6–78.3% and MAPE 35.7–135.6%). Integration of TDM data improved all model predictions (B1/B2 relative improvement vs. A: |MPE|median_all_models 45.1/67.5%; MAPEmedian_all_models 29/39%). The model by Kim et al. was identified to be most appropriate for the total dataset (A/B1/B2: MPE − 9.8/− 5.9/− 0.9%; MAPE 37/27.3/23.7%), Udy et al. performed best in patients receiving intermittent infusion, and Klastrup et al. best predicted patients receiving continuous infusion. Additional evaluations stratified by sex and renal replacement therapy revealed further promising models. Conclusion: The predictive performance of published PIP models in ICU patients varied considerably, highlighting the relevance of appropriate model selection for MIPD. Our differentiated external evaluation identified specific models suitable for clinical use, especially in combination with TDM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
03424642
Volume :
49
Issue :
8
Database :
Academic Search Index
Journal :
Intensive Care Medicine
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
169946606
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-023-07154-0