Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34664209›Full record

ArticlePharmaceutical research2021

Evaluation of the Robustness of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Coupled with Bayesian Forecasting of Busulfan with Regard to Inaccurate Documentation.

Adrin Dadkhah, Dzenefa Alihodzic, Astrid Broeker, Nicolaus Kröger, Claudia Langebrake, Sebastian G Wicha

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmaceutical research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Adrin DadkhahHospital Pharmacy, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. a.dadkhah@uke.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3301-0059
Dzenefa AlihodzicHospital Pharmacy, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Astrid BroekerDept. of Clinical Pharmacy, Institute of Pharmacy, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Nicolaus KrögerDepartment of Stem Cell Transplantation, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Claudia LangebrakeHospital Pharmacy, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Sebastian G WichaDept. of Clinical Pharmacy, Institute of Pharmacy, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Universität Hamburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInaccurate documentation of sampling and infusion times is a potential source of error in personalizing busulfan doses using therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). Planned times rather than the actual times for sampling and infusion time are often documented. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the robustness of a limited sampling TDM of busulfan with regard to inaccurate documentation.

methodsA pharmacometric analysis was conducted in NONMEM® 7.4.3 and "R" by performing stochastic simulation and estimation with four, two and one sample(s) per patient on the basis of a one-compartment- (1CMT) and two-compartment (2CMT) population pharmacokinetic model. The dosing regimens consisted of i.v. busulfan (0.8 mg/kg) every 6 h (Q6H) or 3.2 mg/kg every 24 h (Q24H) with a 2 h- and 3 h infusion time, respectively. The relative prediction error (rPE) and relative root-mean-square error (rRmse) were calculated in order to determine the accuracy and precision of the individual AUC estimation.

resultsA noticeable impact on the estimated AUC based on a 1CMT-model was only observed if uncertain documentation reached ± 30 min (1.60% for Q24H and 2.19% for Q6H). Calculated rPEs and rRmse for Q6H indicate a slightly lower level of accuracy and precision when compared to Q24H. Spread of rPE's and rRmse for the 2CMT-model were wider and higher compared to estimations based on a 1CMT-model.

conclusionsThe estimated AUC was not affected substantially by inaccurate documentation of sampling and infusion time. The calculated rPEs and rRmses of estimated AUC indicate robustness and reliability for TDM of busulfan, even in presence of erroneous records.

Indexed as

Area Under CurveBayes TheoremBusulfanComputer SimulationDocumentationDrug MonitoringHumansModels, BiologicalModels, StatisticalReproducibility of ResultsTime FactorsBusulfanbusulfanpharmacometricssamplingtherapeutic drug monitoring

Identifiers

PMID34664209
PMCPMC8602150
OpenAlexW3206523518

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.