Clinical Pharmacokinetics

, Volume 56, Issue 3, pp 313–316 | Cite as

Author’s Reply to Proost: “Challenges in Individualizing Drug Dosage for Intensive Care Unit Patients”

  • Roger W. JelliffeEmail author

I refer to the comments by Dr. Proost [1] on my paper published in Clinical Pharmacokinetics in August 2016 [2]. Dr. Proost says that I use an “incorrect approach” to pharmacokinetics, and that my conclusions “might have been different if I had used the correct approach.” He also makes many other assertions, several of which have significant clinical implications, so there is a lot to discuss, even after omitting several points.

If we let clearance be CL, volume be V, and the elimination rate constant be Ke, they are all closely interrelated as described below. Dr. Proost says he fully agrees with me about (Eqs.  13):
$${\text{CL}} = V \times {\text{Ke}}$$


Direct Information Elimination Rate Constant Unstable Patient Compartmental Analysis Litmus Test 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

R. Jelliffe has no conflicts of interest to declare. No funding was received in the preparation of this manuscript.


  1. 1.
    Proost JH. Comment on: "Challenges in individualizing drug dosage for intensive care unit patients". [letter]. Clin Pharmacokinet.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jelliffe R. Challenges in individualizing drug dosage for intensive care unit patients: is augmented renal clearance what we really want to know? Some suggested management approaches and clinical software tools. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2016;55(8):897–905. doi: 10.1007/s40262-016-0369-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    D’Argenio D. Optimal sampling times for pharmacokinetic experiments. J Pharmacokinet Biopharmacol. 1981;9:739–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bayard D, Jelliffe R, Neely M. Bayes risk as an alternative to fisher information in determining experimental designs for nonparametric models [slides and abstracts]. Population Optimal Design of Experiments Conference, Lilly Laboratories, Erl Wood Manor, Windesham, Surrey, UK, June 15, 2013. Accessed 8 Dec 2016.
  5. 5.
    Jelliffe R, Bayard D, Neely M. MMopt—an optimal TDM protocol strategy based on Bayes risk and weighted Bayes risk [oral presentation]. In: 14th congress of the international Association for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Clinical Toxicology, 14 Oct 2015, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bayard D, Jelliffe R. A Bayesian approach to tracking patients having changing pharmacokinetic parameters. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2004;31(1):75–107.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Blom HAP. An efficient filter for abruptly changing systems [abstract]. In: 23rd IEEE conference on decision and control, 12–14 Dec 1984, Las Vegas.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Blom HAP, Bar-Shalom Y. The interacting multiple model algorithm for systems with Markovian switching coefficients. IEEE Trans Autom Control. 1988;33:780–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Macdonald I, Staatz C, Jelliffe R, Thomson A. Evaluation and comparison of simple multiple model, richer data multiple model, and sequential interacting multiple model (IMM) Bayesian analyses of gentamicin and vancomycin data collected from patients undergoing cardiothoracic surgery. Ther Drug Monit. 2008;30:67–74.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jelliffe R. Estimation of creatinine clearance in patients with unstable renal function, without a urine specimen. Am J Nephrol. 2002;22:320–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jelliffe R. Optimal methodology is important for optimal pharmacokinetic studies, therapeutic drug monitoring, and patient care [commentary]. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2015;54(9):887–92. doi: 10.1007/s40262-015-0280-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goodwin G, Payne R. Dynamic system identification: experiment design and data analysis. New York: Academic Press; 1977. p. 50 (Theorem 3.4.1).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rowland M, Benet L, Graham G. Clearance concepts in pharmacokinetics. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1973;1(2):123–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mehvar R. The relationship among pharmacokinetic parameters: effects of altered kinetics on the drug plasma concentration-time profiles. Am J Pharm Educ. 2004;68(2):1–9.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jelliffe R, Neely M, editors. Individualized drug therapy for patients: basic foundations, relevant software and clinical applications. 1st ed. Elsevier.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Applied Pharmacokinetics and Bioinformatics, Children’s Hospital of Los AngelesUniversity of Southern California School of MedicineLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations