ArticleJournal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics2024
Maximum a posteriori Bayesian methods out-perform non-compartmental analysis for busulfan precision dosing.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Model-Informed Precision Dosing in Pediatric Patients: Current Software Tools and Bedside Guided Application.Paediatric drugs · 2026Pooled it
- From Therapeutic Drug Monitoring to Model-Informed Precision Dosing: A Review of Busulfan Dosing Optimization in Pediatric Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation.Pharmaceutics · 2026Review
- Model-informed precision dosing of carboplatin in cancer patients by leveraging myelosuppression data from electronic health records.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Uncertainty undermines the validity of antimicrobial pharmacodynamics.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2026Article
- Busulfan exposure variability and acute toxicity in pediatric patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell gene therapy.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- The Rational Basis for Personalized Treatment Using Concentration-Guided Dosing.Therapeutic drug monitoring · 2025Review
- Model-Informed Precision Dosing of Busulfan for Children and Adults Undergoing Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: A Critical Evaluation of Current PK Models and Dose Recommendations.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2025Article
- How I treat Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome.Blood · 2025Review
- Adaptive dosing of high-dose busulfan in real-world adult patients undergoing haematopoietic cell transplant conditioning.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Article
- Comparing two-sample log-linear exposure estimation with Bayesian model-informed precision dosing of tobramycin in adult patients with cystic fibrosis.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2025Article
- Model-informed precision dosing of vancomycin in clinical practice: an intervention development study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Article
- Target Attainment and Population Pharmacokinetics of Cefazolin in Patients with InvasiveAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.