ArticleCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2022
Optimized sampling to estimate vancomycin drug exposure: Comparison of pharmacometric and equation-based approaches in a simulation-estimation study.
Article in CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- A pilot study evaluating mid-point vancomycin concentrations to estimate pharmacokinetics and area under the curve: a prospective study.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Vancomycin levels for Bayesian dose-optimization in critical care: a prospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Feasibility of individualised patient modelling for continuous vancomycin infusions in outpatient antimicrobial therapy, a retrospective study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2023Article
- Model-informed precision dosing of vancomycin for rapid achievement of target area under the concentration-time curve: A simulation study.Clinical and translational science · 2023Article
- Implementing Vancomycin Population Pharmacokinetic Models: An App for Individualized Antibiotic Therapy in Critically Ill Patients.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Evaluation of Neonatal and Paediatric Vancomycin Pharmacokinetic Models and the Impact of Maturation and Serum Creatinine Covariates in a Large Multicentre Data Set.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2023Article
- Association between Augmented Renal Clearance and Inadequate Vancomycin Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Targets in Chinese Adult Patients: A Prospective Observational Study.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Editorial for the Special Issue: "Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Antimicrobials".Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Optimized sampling to estimate vancomycin drug exposure: Comparison of pharmacometric and equation-based approaches in a simulation-estimation study.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vancomycin dosing should be accompanied by area under the concentration-time curve (AUC)-guided dosing using model-informed precision dosing software according to the latest guidelines. Although a peak plus a trough sample is considered the gold standard to determine the AUC, single-sample strategies might be more economic. Yet, optimal sampling times for AUC determination of vancomycin have not been systematically evaluated. In the present study, automated one- or two-sample strategies were systematically explored to estimate the AUC with a model averaging and a model selection algorithm. Both were compared with a conventional equation-based approach in a simulation-estimation study mimicking a heterogenous patient population (n = 6000). The optimal single-sample timepoints were identified between 2-6.5 h post dose, with varying bias values between -2.9% and 1.0% and an imprecision of 23.3%-24.0% across the population pharmacokinetic approaches. Adding a second sample between 4.5-6.0 h improved the predictive performance (-1.7% to 0.0% bias, 17.6%-18.6% imprecision), although the difference in the two-sampling strategies were minor. The equation-based approach was always positively biased and hence inferior to the population pharmacokinetic approaches. In conclusion, the approaches always preferred samples to be drawn early in the profile (<6.5 h), whereas sampling of trough concentrations resulted in a higher imprecision. Furthermore, optimal sampling during the early treatment phase could already give sufficient time to individualize the second dose, which is likely unfeasible using trough sampling.
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.