Clinical Pharmacokinetics

, Volume 21, Issue 6, pp 461–478 | Cite as

Individualising Gentamicin Dosage Regimens

A Comparative Review of Selected Models, Data Fitting Methods and Monitoring Strategies
  • Roger W. Jelliffe
  • Teresa Iglesias
  • Agneta K. Hurst
  • Kimberley A. Foo
  • Julian Rodriguez
Review Article Clinical Pharmacokinetic Concepts

Summary

The various components required for individualising clinical drug dosage regimens are reviewed, including a study of 3 types of fitting procedures, 2 types of gentamicin pharmacokinetic model and the utility of D-optimal times for obtaining serum gentamicin concentrations.

The combination of the current Bayesian fitting procedure, the kslope pharmacokinetic model [in which the elimination rate constant (kel) can change from dose to dose with changing creatinine clearance] and the explicit measurement of the assay error pattern yielded predictions of future serum gentamicin concentrations which were (a) slightly better than those found using weighted nonlinear least squares; (b) somewhat better than those found with Bayesian fitting and a fixed-kel model; (c) better than those found using the traditional linear regression fitting procedure and a fixed kel model. D-Optimally timed pairs of concentrations also predicted future concentrations at least as well, and more cost effectively.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Box GEP, Lucas HL. Design of experiments in nonlinear situations. Biometrika 46: 77–90, 1959Google Scholar
  2. Brooker G, Jelliffe RW. Serum cardiac glycoside assay based upon displacement of 3H-ouabain from Na+-K+-ATPase. Circulation 45: 20–36, 1972PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burton ME, Cho MSS, Platt DR, Day BR, Brater DC, et al. Accuracy of Bayesian and Sawchuk-Zaske dosing methods for gentamicin. Clinical Pharmacy 5: 143–149, 1986PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Caceci MS, Cacheris WP. Fitting curves to data: the simplex algorithm is the answer. BYTE Magazine May: 340–362, 1984Google Scholar
  5. Chrystyn H. Validation of the use of Bayesian analysis in the optimization of gentamicin therapy from the commencement of dosing. Drug Intelligence and Clinical Pharmacy 22: 49–53, 1988PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. De Groot MH. Probability and statistics, pp. 359–360, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading, Mass., 1975Google Scholar
  7. Dettli L, Spring P, Habersang R. Drug dosage in patients with impaired renal function. Postgraduate Medicine 46: 32–35, 1970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 neutropenic cancer patients. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 45: 635–642, 1989PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. D’Argenio DZ. Optimal sampling times for pharmacokinetic experiments. Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics 9: 739–756, 1981PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Finney DJ. Probit analysis, pp. 8–20, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1947Google Scholar
  12. Gilman TM, Mohler PA, Muir KT, Gill MA. Evaluation of Bayesian methods to predict measured gentamicin concentrations. Drug Intelligence and Clinical Pharmacy 20: 469, 1986Google Scholar
  13. Godley PJ, Black J, Frohna PA, Garrelts JC. Comparison of a new Bayesian program with three different microcomputer programs for predicting gentamicin concentrations. Drug Intelligence and Clinical Pharmacy 20: 468–469, 1986Google Scholar
  14. Huang M, Slugg P, Lochrem J, Brynes J. High dose aminoglycoside therapy in surgical ICU patients. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 47: 208, 1990Google Scholar
  15. Hurst AK, Iglesias T, Jelliffe RW, Gilman T, D’Argenio DZ. Population pharmacokinetics of gentamicin in internal medicine patients. Drug Intelligence and Clinical Pharmacy 111: 469, 1985Google Scholar
  16. Hurst AK, Iseri K, Gill M, Noguchi J, Gilman T, et al. Comparison of four methods for predicting serum gentamicin concentrations in surgical patients with perforated or gangrenous appendicitis. Clinical Pharmacy 6: 234–238, 1987PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Iglesias T. Control adaptado de niveles sericos de gentamicina: analisis de tres métodos diferentes, Ph.D Thesis, School of Pharmacy, University of Salamanca, 1985Google Scholar
  18. Jelliffe RW. A mathematical analysis of digitalis kinetics in patients with normal and reduced renal function. Mathematical Biosciences 1: 305–330, 1967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jelliffe RW. An improved method of digoxin therapy. Annals of Internal Medicine 69: 703–717, 1968PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Jelliffe RW, Buell J, Kalaba R, Sridhar R, Rockwell R, et al. An improved method of digitoxin therapy. Annals of Internal Medicine 72: 453–464, 1970PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Jelliffe RW. Creatinine clearance: bedside estimate. Annals of Internal Medicine 79: 604–605, 1973PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Jelliffe RW, D’Argenio DZ, Rodman J, Schumitzky A. A timeshared computer program for adaptive control of lidocaine therapy, using an optimal strategy for obtaining serum concentrations. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care, Washington, November, 1980Google Scholar
  24. 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, May 14–18, p. 51, 1988a (available from the first author through a noncommerical licence agreement with the University of Southern California)Google Scholar
  25. Jelliffe RW, Jelliffe SM. A computer program for estimation of creatinine clearance from unstable serum creatinine levels, age, sex, and weight. Mathematical Biosciences 14: 17–29, 1972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jelliffe RW. Reductions of digitalis toxicity by computer-assisted glycoside dosage regimens. Annals of Internal Medicine 77: 891–906, 1972PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Jelliffe RW, Schumitzky A, D’Argenio DZ, Katz D, Nicholson WF, et al. Time-shared computer programs for M.A.P. 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, July 31–August 5, p. 46, 1983Google Scholar
  28. Jelliffe RW, Schumitzy A, D’Argenio D, Katz D, Nicholson W, et al. Timeshared computer programs for M.A.P. Bayesian adaptive control of dosage regimens of aminoglycosides, lidocaine, digoxin, digitoxin, procainamide, and quinidine. In Bonal & Poston (Eds) Progress in clinical pharmacy VI: Proceedings of the 12th European Symposium on Clinical Pharmacy, Barcelona, October 1983, pp. 173–176, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1983Google Scholar
  29. Jelliffe RW. Time-shared computer programs for therapeutic drug monitoring and adaptive control of dosage regimens. In Moyer & Boeckx (Eds) Applied therapeutic drug monitoring, Vol 1, pp. 133–153, American Association for Clinical Chemistry, Washington, 1982Google Scholar
  30. Jelliffe R. Explicit determination of laboratory assay errors — a useful aid in therapeutic drug monitoring. In ASCP Drug monitoring and toxicology check sample, Vol. 10, No. DM 89-4 (DM-56), pp. 1–5, American Society of Clinical Pathologists, Chicago, 1989Google Scholar
  31. Jelliffe R, Iglesias T, Rodriguez J, Hurst A, Foo K. Factors affecting precise control of serum drug levels in patients. In Cobelli & Mariani (Eds) Preprints of the IFAC Symposium on Modelling and Control in Biomedical Systems, Venice, April 6–8, 1988, pp. 86–88, Pergamon Press, 1988bGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Maire P, Jelliffe R, Dumarest C, Roux D, Breant V, et al. Controle adaptatif optimal des posologies: expérience des aminosides en gériatrie. In Venot & Degoulet (Eds) Informatique et medicaments. Comptes Rendus du Colloque AIM-IF et IRT, Paris, December 1989, Informatique et Santé, Vol. 2, pp. 154–169, Springer Verlag, Paris, 1989Google Scholar
  34. Neider JA, Mead R. A simplex method for function minimization. Computer Journal 7: 308–313, 1965Google Scholar
  35. Rodman JH, Jelliffe RW, Kolb E, Tuey DB, de Guzman, et al. Clinical studies with computer-assisted initial lidocaine therapy. Archives of Internal Medicine 144: 703–709, 1984PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sawchuk R, Zaske D. Pharmacokinetics of dosing regimens which utilize multiple intravenous infusions: gentamicin in burn patients. Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics 4: 183–195, 1976PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Sheiner LB, Beal S, Rosenberg B, Marathe V, et al. Forecasting individual pharmacokinetics. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 31: 294–305, 1979Google Scholar
  38. Vožeh S, Kaufman G, Uematsu T, Follath F. Computer-assisted lidocaine dosage using adaptive feedback method. In Cobell & Mariani (Eds) Preprints of the IFAC Symposium on Modelling and Control in Biomedical Systems, Venice, April 6–8, 1988, pp. 595–599, Pergamon Press, 1988Google Scholar
  39. Vožeh S, Steimer JL. Feedback control methods for drug dosage optimization. Clinical Pharmacokinetics 10: 457–476, 1985PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zaske D, Cipolle R. Aminoglycoside dosing program, 2nd ed., 1983Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roger W. Jelliffe
    • 1
  • Teresa Iglesias
    • 1
  • Agneta K. Hurst
    • 1
  • Kimberley A. Foo
    • 1
  • Julian Rodriguez
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Applied PharmacokineticsUniversity of Southern California, Schools of Medicine and PharmacyLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations