ArticleTherapeutic drug monitoring2016
Accurately Achieving Target Busulfan Exposure in Children and Adolescents With Very Limited Sampling and the BestDose Software.
Article in Therapeutic drug monitoring, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
39 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.
- Model-Informed Precision Dosing in Pediatric Patients: Current Software Tools and Bedside Guided Application.Paediatric drugs · 2026Pooled it
- Population Pharmacokinetic Model of Intravenous Busulfan in Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: Systematic Review and Comparative Simulations.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2023Pooled it
- Clinical pharmacology of cytotoxic drugs in neonates and infants: Providing evidence-based dosing guidance.European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) · 2022Pooled it
- Population Pharmacokinetics and Optimal Sampling Strategy for Model-Based Precision Dosing of Melphalan in Patients Undergoing Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2018Trial
- Prospective Trial on the Use of Trough Concentration versus Area under the Curve To Determine Therapeutic Vancomycin Dosing.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2018Trial
- From Therapeutic Drug Monitoring to Model-Informed Precision Dosing: A Review of Busulfan Dosing Optimization in Pediatric Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation.Pharmaceutics · 2026Review
- Clinical Model-Informed Precision Dosing Consult Service for Accelerating Personalized Medication in Pediatric Patients.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Review
- Risk factors of daptomycin overexposure: a case-control study.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2025Article
- Dosing chemotherapy in children with obesity: literature review and evaluation of local practices.Cancer chemotherapy and pharmacology · 2025Review
- Review
- Real-world pharmacokinetics of trametinib in pediatric low-grade glioma.Cancer chemotherapy and pharmacology · 2025Article
- Leveraging machine learning in limited sampling strategies for efficient estimation of the area under the curve in pharmacokinetic analysis: a review.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Review
- The Significance of Bayesian Pharmacokinetics in Dosing for Critically Ill Patients: A Primer for Clinicians Using Vancomycin as an Example.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Implementation and Cross-Validation of a Pharmacokinetic Model for Precision Dosing of Busulfan in Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplanted Children.Pharmaceutics · 2022Article
- Implementation of Model-Based Dose Adjustment of Tobramycin in Adult Patients with Cystic Fibrosis.Pharmaceutics · 2022Article
- Article
- Implementation and Comparison of Two Pharmacometric Tools for Model-Based Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Precision Dosing of Daptomycin.Pharmaceutics · 2022Article
- Can First-Dose Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Predict the Steady State Area Under the Blood Concentration-Time Curve of Busulfan in Pediatric Patients Undergoing Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation?Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Article
- Personalized Antibiotic Therapy for the Critically Ill: Implementation Strategies and Effects on Clinical Outcome of Piperacillin Therapeutic Drug Monitoring-A Descriptive Retrospective Analysis.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Population Pharmacokinetic Modeling and Dosing Simulations of Tobramycin in Pediatric Patients with Cystic Fibrosis.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBusulfan dose adjustment is routinely guided by plasma concentration monitoring using 4-9 blood samples per dose adjustment, but a pharmacometric Bayesian approach could reduce this sample burden.
methodsThe authors developed a nonparametric population model with Pmetrics. They used it to simulate optimal initial busulfan dosages, and in a blinded manner, they compared dosage adjustments using the model in the BestDose software to dosage adjustments calculated by noncompartmental estimation of area under the time-concentration curve at a national reference laboratory in a cohort of patients not included in model building.
resultsMean (range) age of the 53 model-building subjects was 7.8 years (0.2-19.0 years) and weight was 26.5 kg (5.6-78.0 kg), similar to nearly 120 validation subjects. There were 16.7 samples (6-26 samples) per subject to build the model. The BestDose cohort was also diverse: 10.2 years (0.25-18 years) and 46.4 kg (5.2-110.9 kg). Mean bias and imprecision of the 1-compartment model-predicted busulfan concentrations were 0.42% and 9.2%, and were similar in the validation cohorts. Initial dosages to achieve average concentrations of 600-900 ng/mL were 1.1 mg/kg (≤12 kg, 67% in the target range) and 1.0 mg/kg (>12 kg, 76% in the target range). Using all 9 concentrations after dose 1 in the Bayesian estimation of dose requirements, the mean (95% confidence interval) bias of BestDose calculations for the third dose was 0.2% (-2.4% to 2.9%, P = 0.85), compared with the standard noncompartmental method based on 9 concentrations. With 1 optimally timed concentration 15 minutes after the infusion (calculated with the authors' novel MMopt algorithm) bias was -9.2% (-16.7% to -1.5%, P = 0.02). With 2 concentrations at 15 minutes and 4 hours bias was only 1.9% (-0.3% to 4.2%, P = 0.08).
conclusionsBestDose accurately calculates busulfan intravenous dosage requirements to achieve target plasma exposures in children up to 18 years of age and 110 kg using only 2 blood samples per adjustment compared with 6-9 samples for standard noncompartmental dose calculations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.