Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32457619›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2020

Software Tools for Model-Informed Precision Dosing: How Well Do They Satisfy the Needs?

Wannee Kantasiripitak, Ruth Van Daele, Matthias Gijsen, Marc Ferrante, Isabel Spriet, Erwin Dreesen

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–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

65 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Wannee KantasiripitakTherapeutic and Diagnostic Antibodies Unit, Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Ruth Van DaeleClinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy Unit, Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Matthias GijsenClinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy Unit, Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Marc FerranteDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Isabel SprietClinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy Unit, Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Erwin DreesenTherapeutic and Diagnostic Antibodies Unit, Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Model-informed precision dosing (MIPD) software tools are used to optimize dosage regimens in individual patients, aiming to achieve drug exposure targets associated with desirable clinical outcomes. Over the last few decades, numerous MIPD software tools have been developed. However, they have still not been widely integrated into clinical practice. This study focuses on identifying the requirements for and evaluating the performance of the currently available MIPD software tools. First, a total of 22 experts in the field of precision dosing completed a web survey to assess the importance (from 0; do not agree at all, to 10; completely agree) of 103 pre-established software tool criteria organized in eight categories: user-friendliness and utilization, user support, computational aspects, population models, quality and validation, output generation, privacy and data security, and cost. Category mean ± pooled standard deviation importance scores ranged from 7.2 ± 2.1 (user-friendliness and utilization) to 8.5 ± 1.8 (privacy and data security). The relative importance score of each criterion within a category was used as a weighting factor in the subsequent evaluation of the software tools. Ten software tools were identified through literature and internet searches: four software tools were provided by companies (DoseMeRx, InsightRX Nova, MwPharm++, and PrecisePK) and six were provided by non-company owners (AutoKinetics, BestDose, ID-ODS, NextDose, TDMx, and Tucuxi). All software tools performed well in all categories, although there were differences in terms of in-built software features, user interface design, the number of drug modules and populations, user support, quality control, and cost. Therefore, the choice for a certain software tool should be made based on these differences and personal preferences. However, there are still improvements to be made in terms of electronic health record integration, standardization of software and model validation strategies, and prospective evidence for the software tools' clinical and cost benefits.

Indexed as

model-informed precision dosingpharmacometricssoftware tooltarget concentration interventiontherapeutic drug monitoring

Identifiers

PMID32457619
PMCPMC7224248

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.