ArticleJournal of pharmacokinetics and biopharmaceutics1997
Implementation and evaluation of a stochastic control strategy for individualizing teicoplanin dosage regimen.
Article in Journal of pharmacokinetics and biopharmaceutics, 1997. 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.
- A Nonparametric Method to Optimize Initial Drug Dosing and Attainment of a Target Exposure Interval: Concepts and Application to Busulfan in Pediatrics.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2017Article
- Individualising aminoglycoside dosage regimens after therapeutic drug monitoring: simple or complex pharmacokinetic methods?Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2001Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A stochastic control strategy for individualizing teicoplanin dosing schedule in neutropenic patients is proposed and compared to the usual Bayesian approach based on the mode of the posterior density of the model parameters. Teicoplanin disposition is described by a bicompartmental model. Age, body weight, serum creatinine, white blood cell count, and sex can be included as covariates. Posterior density of model parameters is obtained by Bayes theorem under a discrete form from which the posterior density of teicoplanin trough concentrations are computed for any dosing schedule. Optimal maintenance dose is determined by minimizing the cost associated, through a logarithmic risk function, to the concentrations being outside the therapeutic range. In Monte Carlo simulation studies on 300 individuals, stochastic control was more accurate than, and equally precise as the usual Bayesian approach. Two-sample based predictions were not better than one-sample based ones. Inclusion of covariates in the model improved dramatically the performances of both strategies. A small retrospective study based on real data (n = 16 patients) shows that reasonable accuracy (bias of 0.7 mg/L) and precision (3 mg/L) in teicoplanin trough concentration prediction is obtained with both strategies provided that covariates are taken into account.
Indexed as
Identifiers
9697078What 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.