ReviewClinical pharmacokinetics2001
Individualising aminoglycoside dosage regimens after therapeutic drug monitoring: simple or complex pharmacokinetic methods?
Review in Clinical pharmacokinetics, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Precise Control of the in vivo Fate of Nanomicelles Efficiently Treats Advanced Rheumatoid Arthritis via EGFR/JNK/MMP9 Pathway.International journal of nanomedicine · 2025Article
- Interactions Between Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOACs) and Antiseizure Medications: Potential Implications on DOAC Treatment.CNS drugs · 2023Article
- Implementation and Comparison of Two Pharmacometric Tools for Model-Based Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Precision Dosing of Daptomycin.Pharmaceutics · 2022Article
- Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Optimization of Antibiotic Therapy in Cystic Fibrosis Patients: Current Evidences, Gaps in Knowledge and Future Directions.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2021Review
- A Nonparametric Method to Optimize Initial Drug Dosing and Attainment of a Target Exposure Interval: Concepts and Application to Busulfan in Pediatrics.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2017Article
- Data Analysis Protocol for the Development and Evaluation of Population Pharmacokinetic Models for Incorporation Into the Web-Accessible Population Pharmacokinetic Service - Hemophilia (WAPPS-Hemo).JMIR research protocols · 2016Article
- Comparing dosage adjustment methods for once-daily tobramycin in paediatric and adolescent patients with cystic fibrosis.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2015Article
- Antimicrobial treatment of febrile neutropenia: pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic considerations.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2013Review
- Aminoglycosides in septic shock: an overview, with specific consideration given to their nephrotoxic risk.Drug safety · 2013Review
- Comparison of four renal function estimation equations for pharmacokinetic modeling of gentamicin in geriatric patients.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2012Article
- Monitoring for adverse drug reactions.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2006Review
- Aminoglycoside dosage regimens after therapeutic drug monitoring.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2002Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Measurements of aminoglycoside concentration in serum are used to individualise dosage regimens (dose per administration and/or administration interval) with the goal of attaining the desired therapeutic range as quickly as possible. Therapeutic range is defined in terms of peak concentration (to monitor effectiveness) and trough concentration (to avoid toxicity). This article focuses on methods to individualise aminoglycoside dosage regimens in the context of extended dosage intervals. Simple pharmacokinetic methods involve linear dosage adjustment based on peak or trough concentrations or area under the concentration-time curve, or nomograms. The once daily aminoglycoside nomogram determines the dosage interval for aminoglycosides given as a fixed dose per administration, based on a single concentration measurement drawn 6 to 14 hours after the start of the first infusion. This is a preferred method because of its simplicity, strong pharmacodynamic rationale and prospective validation in a large population. However, it does not work when the fixed dose assumed is not relevant, for example for patients with burns, cystic fibrosis, ascites or pregnancy. Furthermore, it has not been validated in children. In these cases, a more sophisticated method is required. Complex pharmacokinetic methods require dedicated software. Non-Bayesian least-squares methods allow the optimisation of both the dose and the dosage interval, but require aminoglycoside concentrations from two or more samples taken in the post-distributive phase during a single dosage interval. With Bayesian least-squares methods, only one concentration measurement is required, although any number of samples can be taken into account. In the Bayesian maximum a posteriori (MAP) method, the parameter estimates are taken as the values corresponding to the maximum of the posterior density. In 'full' Bayesian approaches (also called stochastic control), all the information about the parameters revealed by the posterior distribution is taken into account, and the optimal regimen is found by minimising the expected value of the weighted sum of squared deviations between predicted and target concentrations. If the population model is reasonably well known, Bayesian methods (MAP or stochastic control) should be used because of their good predictive performance. Although only one concentration measurement is required, better precision is afforded by a two-sample strategy, preferably drawn 1 and 6 hours after the start of the first infusion. If the population model is not known, then the non-Bayesian least-squares method is the method of choice, because of its robustness and lack of requirement for prior information about the distribution of parameters in the population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
11735603What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.