Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27600031›Full record

Observational studyAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2016

Comparative Evaluation of the Predictive Performances of Three Different Structural Population Pharmacokinetic Models To Predict Future Voriconazole Concentrations.

Andras Farkas, Gergely Daroczi, Phillip Villasurda, Michael Dolton, Midori Nakagaki, Jason A Roberts

Abstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Fuzzy Evaluation of Pharmacokinetic Models.Computational intelligence and neuroscience · 2018
    Article
  14. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Andras FarkasDepartment of Pharmacy, Mount Sinai West Hospital, New York, New York, USA afarkas@chpnet.org.
Gergely DarocziEasyStats Ltd., London, United Kingdom.
Phillip VillasurdaDepartment of Pharmacy, Vassar Brothers Medical Center, Poughkeepsie, New York, USA.
Michael DoltonSchool of Biomedical Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Midori NakagakiPharmacy Department, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Jason A RobertsPharmacy Department, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalAdultAntibiotic ProphylaxisAntifungal AgentsBayes TheoremDrug MonitoringFemaleHumansLinear ModelsMaleMiddle AgedNonlinear DynamicsVoriconazoleAntifungal AgentsVoriconazole

Identifiers

PMID27600031
PMCPMC5075089

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.