Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38520573›Full record

ArticleJournal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics2024

Maximum a posteriori Bayesian methods out-perform non-compartmental analysis for busulfan precision dosing.

Jasmine H Hughes, Janel Long-Boyle, Ron J Keizer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Uncertainty undermines the validity of antimicrobial pharmacodynamics.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
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

3 authors.

Jasmine H HughesInsightRX, 548 Market St. #88083, San Francisco, CA, 94104, USA. jasmine@insight-rx.com.
Janel Long-BoyleDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Ron J KeizerInsightRX, 548 Market St. #88083, San Francisco, CA, 94104, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dose personalization improves patient outcomes for many drugs with a narrow therapeutic index and high inter-individuality variability, including busulfan. Non-compartmental analysis (NCA) and model-based methods like maximum a posteriori Bayesian (MAP) approaches are two methods routinely used for dose optimization. These approaches vary in how they estimate patient-specific pharmacokinetic parameters to inform a dose and the impact of these differences is not well-understood. Using busulfan as an example application and area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) as a target exposure metric, these estimation methods were compared using retrospective patient data (N = 246) and simulated precision dosing treatment courses. NCA was performed with or without peak extension, and MAP Bayesian estimation was performed using either the one-compartment Shukla model or the two-compartment McCune model. All methods showed good agreement on real-world data (correlation coefficients of 0.945-0.998) as assessed by Bland-Altman plots, although agreement between NCA and MAP methods was higher during the first dosing interval (0.982-0.994) compared to subsequent dosing intervals (0.918-0.938). In dose adjustment simulations, both NCA and MAP estimated high target attainment (> 98%) although true simulated target attainment was lower for NCA (63-66%) versus MAP (91-93%). The largest differences in AUC estimation were due to different assumptions for the shape of the concentration curve during the infusion phase, followed by how the methods considered time-dependent clearance and concentration-time points collected in earlier intervals. In conclusion, although AUC estimates between the two methods showed good correlation, in a simulated study, MAP lead to higher target attainment. When changing from one method to another, or changing infusion duration and other factors, optimum estimated exposure targets may require adjusting to maintain a consistent exposure.

Indexed as

Area Under CurveBayes TheoremBusulfanModels, BiologicalAdultAgedAntineoplastic Agents, AlkylatingComputer SimulationDose-Response Relationship, DrugFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrecision MedicineRetrospective StudiesYoung AdultAntineoplastic Agents, AlkylatingBusulfanBayesian forecastingModel-informed precision dosingNon-compartmental analysisPharmacokinetics

Identifiers

PMID38520573
PMCPMC11136738

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.