Drug Investigation

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 20–29 | Cite as

Nonpharmacokinetic Clinical Factors Affecting Aminoglycoside Therapeutic Precision

A Simulation Study
  • R. W. Jelliffe
  • A. Schumitzky
  • M. Van Guilder
Original Research Article

Summary

A Monte Carlo simulation study evaluated the effects of a simulated ‘good’ or ‘poor’ ward care setting, pharmacy, laboratory and phlebotomy service on the resulting precision of control of serum tobramycin concentrations in a representative (theoretical) patient receiving the drug. The ward care (precise dose administration and recording of times given) and the pharmacy (precise dosage preparation) played significant roles in achieving precise serum concentrations whereas laboratory (assay precision) and the phlebotomy service (precise labelling of blood specimen times) were considerably less important. However, use of a simulated ‘smart’ infusion pump contributed most to therapeutic precision.

These results suggest that therapeutic precision can be increased, and costs reduced, by manufacturing total daily drug doses in reproducible concentrations in conveniently sized bags and tubing, minimising preparation of individual doses (saving labour costs), and administering each individual dose from the bag precisely, either with conventional accurately set infusion pumps or with ‘smart’ infusion apparatus.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beckmann P. A history of pi, 3rd ed., pp. 163–165, St Martin’s Press, New York, 1974Google Scholar
  2. Box GEP, Lucas HL. Design of experiments in nonlinear situations. Biometrika 46: 77–90, 1959Google Scholar
  3. Brooker G, Jelliffe RW. Serum cardiac glycoside assay based upon displacement of 3H-ouabain from Na-K ATPase. Circulation 45: 20–36, 1972PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. D’Argenio DZ. Optimal sampling times for pharmacokinetic experiments. Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics 9: 739–756, 1981PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Deshpande J, Upadhyay T, Lainiotis D. Adaptive control of linear stochastic systems. Automatica 9: 107–115, 1973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Drusano G, Forrest A, Plaisance K, Wade J. A prospective evaluation of optimal sampling theory in the determination of the steady-state pharmacokinetics of piperacillin in febrile neurotropenic cancer patients. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 45: 635–642, 1989PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Drusano G, Forrest A, Snyder M, Reed M, Blumer J. An evaluation of optimal sampling strategy and adaptive study design. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 44: 232–288, 1988PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Evans WE. Clinical pharmacodynamics of anticancer drugs: a basis for extending the concept of dose-intensity. Blut 56: 241–248, 1988PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hurst A, Yoshinaga M, Mitani G, Foo K, Jelliffe R, et al. Application of a Bayesian method to monitor and adjust vancomycin dosage regimens. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 34: 1165–1171, 1990PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Iles D, Schumitzky A. Multiple model adaptive control of pharmacokinetic systems. Technical Report 84–1, Laboratory of Applied Pharmacokinetics, University of Southern California School of Medicine, 1984Google Scholar
  11. Jazwinski A. Stochastic processes and filtering theory. Academic Press, New York, 1970Google Scholar
  12. Jelliffe R. Open-loop-feedback control of serum drug concentrations: pharmacokinetic approaches to drug therapy. Medical Instrumentation 17: 267–273, 1983PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Jelliffe RW. Clinical applications of pharmacokinetics and control theory. In Maronde (Ed.) Topics in clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, pp. 57–80, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1986Google Scholar
  14. Jelliffe R. Explicit determination of laboratory assay errors — a useful aid in therapeutic drug monitoring. ASCP Drug Monitoring and Toxicology Check Sample, Vol. 10, pp. 1–5, No. DM 89–4 (DM-56). American Society of Clinical Pathologists, Chicago, Illinois, 1989Google Scholar
  15. Jelliffe R, Nicholson W. Computer-assisted therapy and automated infusion apparatus. In Fokkens et al. (Eds) Proceedings of the Medinfo — 83 Seminars, pp. 126–128, IFIP-IMIA, North Holland, 1983Google Scholar
  16. Jelliffe RW, Buell J, Kalaba R. Reduction of digitalis toxicity by computer-assisted glycoside dosage regimens. Annals of Internal Medicine 77: 891–906, 1972PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Jelliffe R, Rodman J, Kolb E. Clinical studies with computerassisted lidocaine infusion regimens. Proceedings of the 10th Inter-American Congress of Cardiology, Caracas, Venezuela, September 5–11, 1976Google Scholar
  18. Jelliffe RW, Schumitzky A, D’Argenio DZ, Katz D, Nicholson WF, et al. Time-shared computer programs for MAP Bayesian forecasting and adaptive control of dosage regimens of lidocaine, aminoglycosides, procainamide, digoxin, digitoxin, and quinidine, with optimal monitoring strategies and automatic delivery of infusion protocols. Proceedings of the 2nd World Congress on Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Washington DC, July 31-August 5, p. 46, 1983Google Scholar
  19. Jelliffe RW, D’Argenio DZ, Schumitzky A, Hu L, Liu M. The USC PC-PACK programs for planning, monitoring, and adjusting drug dosage regimens. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation, Washington, DC, p. 51 (available from the first author through a non-commercial licence agreement with the University of Southern California, May 14–18, 1988)Google Scholar
  20. Jelliffe R, Iglesias T, Hurst A, Foo K, Rodriguez J. Individualizing drug dosage regimens: a review, with comparison of two types of pharmacokinetic models of gentamicin, three methods of fitting serum concentration data, and D-optimal versus conventional monitoring strategies. Clinical Pharmacokinetics 21: 461–478, 1991PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Katz D, D’Argenio D. Discrete approximation of multivariate densities with application to Bayesian estimation. Computational Statistics Data Analysis 2: 27–36, 1984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Landaw E. Optimal design for individual parameter estimation in pharmacokinetics. In Rowland et al. (Eds) Variation in drug therapy: description, estimation and control, pp. 187–200, Raven Press, New York, 1985Google Scholar
  23. Maire P, Jelliffe R, Dumarest C, Roux D, Breant V, et al. Controle adaptatif optimal des posologies: experience des aminosides en geriatrie. In Venot & Degoulet (Eds) Informatique et Sante, Vol. 2, informatique et medicaments, comptes rendus du colloque AIM-IF et IRT, Paris, December, 1989, pp. 154–169, Springer Verlag, Paris, 1989Google Scholar
  24. Rodman J. Unpublished data, personal communication, 1982Google Scholar
  25. Rodman JH, Jelliffe RW; Kolb E, Tuey DB, de Guzman MF, et al. Clinical studies with computer-assisted initial lidocaine therapy. Archives of Internal Medicine 144: 703–709, 1984PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sheiner LB, Beal S, Rosenberg B, Marathe V. Forecasting individual pharmacokinetics. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 26: 294–305, 1979PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Steimer JL, Mallet A, Mentre F. Estimating interindividual pharmacokinetic variability. In Rowland et al. (Eds) Variability in drug therapy: description, estimation, and control, pp. 65–111, Raven Press, New York, 1985Google Scholar
  28. Ulam S. Adventures of a mathematician, pp. 196–200, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1983Google Scholar
  29. Vozeh S, Steimer JL. Feedback control methods for drug dosage optimization. Clinical Pharmacokinetics 10: 457–476, 1985PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. W. Jelliffe
    • 1
  • A. Schumitzky
    • 2
  • M. Van Guilder
    • 3
  1. 1.Laboratory of Applied PharmacokineticsUniversity of California School of MedicineLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Department of MathematicsCal-State UniversityFullertonUSA

Personalised recommendations