ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2025
Comparing two-sample log-linear exposure estimation with Bayesian model-informed precision dosing of tobramycin in adult patients with cystic fibrosis.
Article in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 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.
- One Model to Dose Them All: A Population Pharmacokinetic Model for Multiple Aminoglycosides Across the Human Lifespan.Journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Can the two-point method based on peak and trough concentrations accurately estimate the area under the curve of polymyxin B? A Monte Carlo simulation study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tobramycin dosing in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) is challenged by its high pharmacokinetic (PK) variability and narrow therapeutic window. Doses are typically individualized using two-sample log-linear regression (LLR) to quantify the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC). Bayesian model-informed precision dosing (MIPD) may allow dose individualization with fewer samples; however, the relative performance of these methods is unknown. This single-center retrospective analysis included adult patients with CF receiving tobramycin from 2015 to 2022. Tobramycin concentrations were predicted using LLR or Bayesian estimation with two population PK models (Hennig and Alghanem). Then, both methods were used to estimate the AUC for simulated patients. For Bayesian estimation, AUC estimation with flattened priors and limited sampling strategies were also assessed. Predictions were evaluated using normalized root mean square error (nRMSE), mean percent error (MPE), and accuracy. The data set included 70 treatment courses, with 32 not evaluable by LLR due to detection limits or timing issues. Bayesian estimation demonstrated worse accuracy (47.1%-50.7% vs 75.7%), higher MPE (24.2%-32.4% vs -2.4%), and higher nRMSE (35.0%-39.4% vs 24.8%) than LLR for peak concentrations but performed better on troughs (accuracy: 92.0%-92.9% vs 84.6%). Bayesian estimation with flattened priors and a single sample at 4 h was comparable to LLR performance, with better accuracy (42.9%-68.0% vs 41.1% LLR), comparable MPE (-2.3% to -3.7% vs -0.5%) and nRMSE (11.3%-21.6% vs 17.3%). Bayesian estimation with one concentration and flattened priors can match LLR prediction accuracy. However, popPK models must be improved to better estimate peak samples.
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.