TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparative evaluation of the predictive performances of three different structural population pharmacokinetic models to predict future voriconazole concentrations
AU - Farkas, Andras
AU - Daroczi, Gergely
AU - Villasurda, Phillip
AU - Dolton, Michael
AU - Nakagaki, Midori
AU - Roberts, Jason A.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© Copyright 2016, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.
PY - 2016/11
Y1 - 2016/11
N2 - Bayesian methods for voriconazole therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) have been reported previously, but there are only sparse reports comparing the accuracy and precision of predictions of published models. Furthermore, the comparative accuracy of linear, mixed linear and nonlinear, or entirely nonlinear models may be of high clinical relevance. In this study, models were coded into individually designed optimum dosing strategies (ID-ODS) with voriconazole concentration data analyzed using inverse Bayesian modeling. The data used were from two independent data sets, patients with proven or suspected invasive fungal infections (n = 57) and hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients (n = 10). Observed voriconazole concentrations were predicted whereby for each concentration value, the data available to that point were used to predict that value. The mean prediction error (ME) and mean squared prediction error (MSE) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated to measure absolute bias and precision, while-δME and-δMSE and their 95% CI were used to measure relative bias and precision, respectively. A total of 519 voriconazole concentrations were analyzed using three models. MEs (95% CI) were 0.09 (-0.02, 0.22), 0.23 (0.04, 0.42), and 0.35 (0.16 to 0.54) while the MSEs (95% CI) were 2.1 (1.03, 3.17), 4.98 (0.90, 9.06), and 4.97 (-0.54 to 10.48) for the linear, mixed, and nonlinear models, respectively. In conclusion, while simulations with the linear model were found to be slightly more accurate and similarly precise, the small difference in accuracy is likely negligible from the clinical point of view, making all three approaches appropriate for use in a voriconazole TDM program.
AB - Bayesian methods for voriconazole therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) have been reported previously, but there are only sparse reports comparing the accuracy and precision of predictions of published models. Furthermore, the comparative accuracy of linear, mixed linear and nonlinear, or entirely nonlinear models may be of high clinical relevance. In this study, models were coded into individually designed optimum dosing strategies (ID-ODS) with voriconazole concentration data analyzed using inverse Bayesian modeling. The data used were from two independent data sets, patients with proven or suspected invasive fungal infections (n = 57) and hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients (n = 10). Observed voriconazole concentrations were predicted whereby for each concentration value, the data available to that point were used to predict that value. The mean prediction error (ME) and mean squared prediction error (MSE) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated to measure absolute bias and precision, while-δME and-δMSE and their 95% CI were used to measure relative bias and precision, respectively. A total of 519 voriconazole concentrations were analyzed using three models. MEs (95% CI) were 0.09 (-0.02, 0.22), 0.23 (0.04, 0.42), and 0.35 (0.16 to 0.54) while the MSEs (95% CI) were 2.1 (1.03, 3.17), 4.98 (0.90, 9.06), and 4.97 (-0.54 to 10.48) for the linear, mixed, and nonlinear models, respectively. In conclusion, while simulations with the linear model were found to be slightly more accurate and similarly precise, the small difference in accuracy is likely negligible from the clinical point of view, making all three approaches appropriate for use in a voriconazole TDM program.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84994841551&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1128/AAC.00970-16
DO - 10.1128/AAC.00970-16
M3 - Article
C2 - 27600031
AN - SCOPUS:84994841551
SN - 0066-4804
VL - 60
SP - 6806
EP - 6812
JO - Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
JF - Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
IS - 11
ER -