METHODS: The warfarin maintenance doses for 140 patients were predicted using the dosing tool and compared with the observed maintenance dose. The impact of genotype was assessed by predicting maintenance doses with prior parameter values known to be altered by genetic variability (eg, EC50 for VKORC1 genotype). The prior population was evaluated by fitting the published kinetic-pharmacodynamic model, which underpins the Bayesian tool, to the observed data using NONMEM and comparing the model parameter estimates with published values.
RESULTS: The Bayesian tool produced positively biased dose predictions in the new cohort of patients (mean prediction error [95% confidence interval]; 0.32 mg/d [0.14-0.5]). The bias was only observed in patients requiring ≥7 mg/d. The direction and magnitude of the observed bias was not influenced by genotype. The prior model provided a good fit to our data, which suggests that the bias was not caused by different prior and posterior populations.
CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance doses for patients requiring ≥7 mg/d were overpredicted. The bias was not due to the influence of genotype nor was it related to differences between the prior and posterior populations. There is a need for a more mechanistic model that captures warfarin dose-response relationship at higher warfarin doses.
METHODS: Data from 43 lung transplant recipients (1021 tacrolimus concentrations) administered an immediate-release oral formulation of tacrolimus were used to evaluate the predictive performance of 17 published population pharmacokinetic models for tacrolimus. Data were collected from immediately after transplantation up to 90 days after transplantation. Model performance was evaluated using (1) prediction-based assessments (bias and imprecision) of individual predicted tacrolimus concentrations at the fourth dosing based on 1 to 3 previous dosings and (2) simulation-based assessment (prediction-corrected visual predictive check; pcVPC). Both assessments were stratified based on concomitant azole antifungal use. Model performance was clinically acceptable if the bias was within ±20%, imprecision was ≤20%, and the 95% confidence interval of bias crossed zero.
RESULTS: In the presence of concomitant antifungal therapy, no model showed acceptable performance in predicting tacrolimus concentrations at the fourth dosing (n = 33), and pcVPC plots displayed poor model fit to the data set. However, this fit slightly improved in the absence of azole antifungal use, where 4 models showed acceptable performance in predicting tacrolimus concentrations at the fourth dosing (n = 33).
CONCLUSIONS: Although none of the evaluated models were appropriate in guiding tacrolimus dosing in lung transplant recipients receiving concomitant azole antifungal therapy, 4 of these models displayed potential applicability in guiding dosing in recipients not receiving concomitant azole antifungal therapy. However, further model refinement is required before the widespread implementation of such models in clinical practice.
METHODS: A retrospective audit of heart transplant recipients (n = 87) treated with tacrolimus was performed. Relevant data were collected from the time of transplant to discharge. The concordance of tacrolimus dosing and monitoring according to hospital guidelines was assessed. The observed and software-predicted tacrolimus concentrations (n = 931) were compared for the first 3 weeks of oral immediate-release tacrolimus (Prograf) therapy, and the predictive performance (bias and imprecision) of the software was evaluated.
RESULTS: The majority (96%) of initial oral tacrolimus doses were guideline concordant. Most initial intravenous doses (93%) were lower than the guideline recommendations. Overall, 36% of initial tacrolimus doses were administered to transplant recipients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of <60 mL/min/1.73 m despite recommendations to delay the commencement of therapy. Of the tacrolimus concentrations collected during oral therapy (n = 1498), 25% were trough concentrations obtained at steady-state. The software displayed acceptable predictions of tacrolimus concentration from day 12 (bias: -6%; 95%confidence interval, -11.8 to 2.5; imprecision: 16%; 95% confidence interval, 8.7-24.3) of therapy.
CONCLUSIONS: Tacrolimus dosing and monitoring were discordant with the guidelines. The Bayesian forecasting software was suitable for guiding tacrolimus dosing after 11 days of therapy in heart transplant recipients. Understanding the factors contributing to the variability in tacrolimus pharmacokinetics immediately after transplant may help improve software predictions.
METHODS: Medical records of renal transplant patients at Penang General Hospital were retrospectively analyzed. A time-dissociated PKPD model with covariate effects was developed using NONMEM to evaluate renal graft function response, quantified as estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), toward the cyclosporine cumulative exposure (area under the concentration-time curve). The final model was integrated into a tool to predict the potential outcome. Individual eGFR predictions were evaluated based on the clinical response recorded as acute rejection/nephrotoxicity events.
RESULTS: A total of 1256 eGFR readings with 2473 drug concentrations were obtained from 107 renal transplant patients receiving cyclosporine. An Emax drug effect with a linear drug toxicity model best described the data. The baseline renal graft level (E0), maximum effect (Emax), area under the concentration-time curve achieving 50% of the maximum effect, and nephrotoxicity slope were estimated as 12.9 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2, 50.7 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2, 1740 ng·h·mL-1, and 0.00033, respectively. The hemoglobin level was identified as a significant covariate affecting the E0. The model discerned acute rejection from nephrotoxicity in 19/24 cases.
CONCLUSIONS: A time-dissociated PKPD model successfully described a large number of observations and was used to develop an online tool to predict renal graft response. This may help discern early rejection from nephrotoxicity, especially for patients unwilling to undergo a biopsy or those waiting for biopsy results.