ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2025
External evaluation of intravenous vancomycin population pharmacokinetic models in adults receiving high-flux intermittent haemodialysis.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- 3D Nanofibrous Scaffolds for Encapsulation-Controlled Vancomycin Delivery: Antibacterial Performance and Cytocompatibility.Polymers · 2025Article
- External evaluation of intravenous vancomycin population pharmacokinetic models in adults receiving high-flux intermittent haemodialysis.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsPatients undergoing haemodialysis (HD) are at greater risk of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections requiring intravenous vancomycin. Close vancomycin therapeutic drug monitoring is warranted in HD patients as renal clearance is the primary elimination pathway. Clinically, population pharmacokinetics (popPK) model-informed dosing is commonly used. This study aimed to perform an external evaluation of published vancomycin popPK models developed for adults undergoing high-flux intermittent HD, and to create a dosing nomogram derived from the model that performed best.
methodsA literature review was conducted through PubMed and EMBASE to identify relevant popPK models. an external dataset was collected retrospectively from patients of 2 healthcare centres in Quebec, Canada. Selected models were implemented in NONMEM (v7.5; ICON Development Solutions). Predictive performance was assessed through prediction and simulation-based diagnostics.
resultsIn total, 2386 vancomycin concentrations were collected from 274 patients and 476 antibiotic courses. Four vancomycin popPK models were selected for evaluation. None of the models demonstrated overall satisfactory or clinically acceptable predictive performance. Nonetheless, Bae et al.'s model performed best with a median prediction error of 16.25% and median absolute prediction error of 34.66%. Different predictive performance was also observed for vancomycin concentrations from samples collected during and between HD sessions.
conclusionAll evaluated models presented poor overall predictive performance. Further studies are required, through existing popPK model parameter re-estimation or new model development, to adequately describe vancomycin pharmacokinetics for our high-flux intermittent HD patient cohort.
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.