Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34021809›Full record

ArticleCancer chemotherapy and pharmacology2021

Evaluation of two software using Bayesian methods for monitoring exposure and dosing once-daily intravenous busulfan in paediatric patients receiving haematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

Rachael Lawson, Lachlan Paterson, Christopher J Fraser, Stefanie Hennig

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer chemotherapy and pharmacology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
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

4 authors.

Rachael Lawson *School of Pharmacy, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. Rachael.Lawson@health.qld.gov.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0104-5396
Lachlan Paterson *School of Pharmacy, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9773-6580
Christopher J FraserBlood and Marrow Transplant Service, Queensland Children's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Stefanie HennigSchool of Pharmacy, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5972-3711

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo assess the ability of model-based personalised dosing tools to estimate busulfan exposure (i) in comparison to clinically used intensive sampling exposure estimation procedure, (ii) using limited sampling strategies and (iii) to predict changes in busulfan clearance during busulfan treatment.

methodsData on intravenous busulfan dosing for patients with 4 consecutive days were entered into Bayesian forecasting software, InsightRX and NextDose. Prediction of busulfan cumulative exposure was compared to current clinical practice estimation, aiming for pre-defined individualised target of cumulative exposure. Estimation performance was tested given several limited sampling strategies.

resultsThirty-two paediatric patients (0.2-16.5 years) provided a total of 103 daily exposure measurements estimated using 7 samples taken per day (full sampling), with 19 patients having sampling following all doses administered. Both software tools utilising Bayesian methods provided acceptable relative bias and precision of cumulative exposure estimations under the tested sampling scenarios. Relative bias ranged from median RE of 0.1-14.6% using InsightRX and from 3.4-7.8% using NextDose. Precision ranged from median RMSE of 0.19-0.32 mg·h·L

conclusionBayesian methods were shown to have relatively low bias and precisely estimate busulfan exposure using intensive sampling and several limited sampling strategies, which provides evidence for prospective studies to evaluate these tools in clinical practice. A trend to overestimation of exposure using Bayesian methods was observed compared to clinical practice. Reduction of busulfan clearance from day 1 to 4 of once daily dosing was confirmed and should be considered when adjusting doses.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalAdministration, IntravenousAdolescentAntineoplastic Agents, AlkylatingBayes TheoremBusulfanChildChild, PreschoolDose-Response Relationship, DrugDrug Administration ScheduleDrug MonitoringFemaleHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationHumansInfantMaleAntineoplastic Agents, AlkylatingBusulfanBayesian forecastingBusulfanModel-based personalised dosingPaediatricPopulation pharmacokineticsStem cell transplantationTarget concentration intervention

Identifiers

PMID34021809

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.