ArticleTherapeutic drug monitoring2026
Implementing a Model-Informed Precision Dosing Service for Cefepime in a Quaternary Children's Hospital: A First-Year Experience.
Article in Therapeutic drug monitoring, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundThis study describes the first-year experience with a model-informed precision dosing (MIPD) consultation service for cefepime at a quaternary children's hospital, including patient characteristics, turnaround times, process barriers, and the impact of dosing recommendations.
methodsThis prospective observational study included data from all cefepime MIPD consultations from August 2024 to August 2025. Demographic, clinical, microbiologic, and treatment data were obtained from electronic health records. Timeliness was evaluated by tracking timestamps from consult order to result communication and dose adjustment. The analysis examined whether recommendations led to changes in dose, dosing frequency, or infusion duration.
resultsNineteen patients (median age 2.7 years, range 1 month-27.7 years) received a total of 20 cefepime MIPD consultations. Infection sources included bloodstream, abdomen, respiratory tract, central nervous system, peritoneal dialysis catheter, and urine. Half of the patients required extracorporeal support. Organisms were isolated in 10 patients (cefepime MICs <0.12-8 mg/L), whereas others were dosed empirically. Recommendations were provided a median of 27.8 hours after consultation order (range 6.6-82.4 hours). Eight (40%) recommendations supported continuing the existing regimen, and 10 (50%) resulted in new dosing strategies. In 1 case (5%), cefepime was changed to meropenem owing to concern about possible neurotoxicity, and in another, the family opted for comfort-focused care before recommendations could be provided. Challenges included logistical barriers, communication gaps, insufficient training, system limitations, and clinical issues.
conclusionsThese findings support the feasibility and clinical utility of an MIPD consultation service for cefepime. The service enabled timely identification of high or low exposures, including in patients on extracorporeal support, and guided individualized dosing decisions to optimize target attainment.
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.