Clinical Pharmacokinetics

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 57–77 | Cite as

Model-Based, Goal-Oriented, Individualised Drug Therapy

Linkage of Population Modelling, New ‘Multiple Model’ Dosage Design, Bayesian Feedback and Individualised Target Goals
  • Roger W. Jelliffe
  • Alan Schumitzky
  • David Bayard
  • Mark Milman
  • Michael Van Guilder
  • Xin Wang
  • Feng Jiang
  • Xavier Barbaut
  • Pascal Maire
Review Article Concepts


This article examines the use of population pharmacokinetic models to store experiences about drugs in patients and to apply that experience to the care of new patients. Population models are the Bayesian prior. For truly individualised therapy, it is necessary first to select a specific target goal, such as a desired serum or peripheral compartment concentration, and then to develop the dosage regimen individualised to best hit that target in that patient.

One must monitor the behaviour of the drug by measuring serum concentrations or other responses, hopefully obtained at optimally chosen times, not only to see the raw results, but to also make an individualised (Bayesian posterior) model of how the drug is behaving in that patient. Only then can one see the relationship between the dose and the absorption, distribution, effect and elimination of the drug, and the patient’s clinical sensitivity to it; one must always look at the patient. Only by looking at both the patient and the model can it be judged whether the target goal was correct or needs to be changed. The adjusted dosage regimen is again developed to hit that target most precisely starting with the very next dose, not just for some future steady state.

Nonparametric population models have discrete, not continuous, parameter distributions. These lead naturally into the multiple model method of dosage design, specifically to hit a desired target with the greatest possible precision for whatever past experience and present data are available on that drug — a new feature for this goal-oriented, model-based, individualised drug therapy. As clinical versions of this new approach become available from several centres, it should lead to further improvements in patient care, especially for bacterial and viral infections, cardiovascular therapy, and cancer and transplant situations.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Rowland M, Sheiner L, Steimer JL, editors. Variability in drug therapy: description, estimation, and control. New York: Raven Press, 1985.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Reuning R, Sams R, Notari R. Role of pharmacokinetics in drug dosage adjustment: 1. pharmacologic effects, kinetics, and apparent volume of distribution of digoxin. J Clin Pharmacol 1973; 13: 127–41.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sheiner L, Beal S, Rosenberg B, et al. Forecasting individual pharmacokinetics. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1979; 26: 294–305.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aarons L. The estimation of population pharmacokinetic parameters using an EM algorithm. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 1993; 41: 9–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beal S, Sheiner L. NONMEM user’s guide I: users basic guide. San Francisco: Division of Clinical Pharmacology, University of California, 1979.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sheiner L. The population approach to pharmacokinetic data analysis: rationale and standard data analysis methods. Drug Metab Rev 1984; 15: 153–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beal S. Population pharmacokinetic data and parameter estimation based on their first two statistical moments. Drug Metab Rev 1984; 15: 173–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    De Groot M. Probability and statistics. 2nd ed. Reading (MA): Addison-Wesley, 1986: 334–6.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Spieler G, Schumitzky A. Asymptotic properties of extended least squares estimators with approximate models [technical report]. Los Angeles: Laboratory of Applied Pharmacokinetics, University of Southern California School of Medicine, 1992: 92–4.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Spieler G, Schumitzky A. Asymptotic properties of extended least squares estimates with application to population pharmacokinetics. San Francisco: Proceedings of the American Statistical Society, Biopharmaceutical Section, 1993: 177–82.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vonesh E, Chinchilla V. Linear and nonlinear models for analysis of repeated measurements. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1997: 354–5.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rodman J, Silverstein K. Comparison of two stage (TS) and first order (FO) methods for estimation of population parameters in an intensive pharmacokinetic (PK) study. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1990; 47: 151.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maire P, Barbaut X, Girard P, et al. Preliminary results of three methods for population pharmacokinetic analysis (NONMEM, NPML, NPEM) of amikacin in geriatric and general medicine patients. Int J Biomed Comput 1994; 36: 139–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lindstrom M, Bates D. Nonlinear mixed-effects models for repeated measures data. Biometrics 1990; 46: 673–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vonesh E, Carter R. Mixed effects nonlinear regressions for unbalanced repeated measures. Biometrics 1992; 48: 1–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wakefield J, Smith A, Racine-Poon A, et al. Bayesian ananysis of linear and nonlinear population models. Applied Stats 1994; 43: 201–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Davidian M, Gallant A. The nonlinear mixed effects model with a smooth random effects density. Biometrika 1993; 80: 475–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bertilsson L. Geographic/interracial differences in polymorphic drug oxidation. Clin Pharmacokinet 1995; 29: 192–209.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lindsay B. The geometry of mixture likelihoods: a general theory. Ann Statist 1983; 11: 86–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mallet A. A maximum likelihood estimation method for random coefficient regression models. Biometrika 1986; 73: 645–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schumitzky A. The nonparametric maximum likelihood approach to pharmacokinetic population analysis: proceedings of the 1993 Western Simulation Multiconference: simulation for health care. San Deigo: Society for Computer Simulation, 1993: 95–100.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schumitzky A. Nonparametric EM algorithms for estimating prior distributions. App Math Comput 1991; 45: 143–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hurst A, Yoshinaga M, Mitani G, et al. Application of a bayesian method to monitor and adjust vancomycin dosage regimens. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34: 1165–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bayard D, Milman M, Schumitzky A. Design of dosage regimens: a multiple model stochastic approach. Int J Biomed Comput 1994; 36: 103–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bayard D, Jelliffe R, Schumitzky A, et al. Precision drug dosage regimens using multiple model adaptive control: theory and application to simulated vancomycin therapy. In: Sridhar R, Srinavasa RK, Vasudevan L, editor. Selected topics in mathematical physics. Madras: Allied Publishers Inc, 1995: 407–26.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mallet A, Mentre F, Giles J, et al. Handling covariates in population pharmacokinetics with an application to gentamicin. Biomed Meas Infor Contr 1988; 2: 138–46.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Taright N, Mentre F, Mallet A, et al. Nonparametric estimation of population characteristics of the kinetics of lithium from observational and experimental data: individualization of chronic dosing regimen using a new bayesian approach. Ther Drug Monit 1994; 16: 258–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jerling M. Population kinetics of antidepressant and neuroleptic drugs: studies of therapeutic drug monitoring data to evaluate kinetic variability, drug interactions, nonlinear kinetics, and the influence of genetic factors Ph.D. thesis]. Stockholm: Karolinska Institute at Huddinge University Hospital, 1995: 28–9.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    D’Argenio D. Optimal sampling times for pharmacokinetic experiments. J Pharmacokin Biopharm 1981; 9: 739–56.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jelliffe R, Iglesias T, Hurst A, et al. Individualising gentamicin dosage regimens: a comparative review of selected models, data filling methods and monitoring strategies. Clin Pharmacokinet 1991; 21: 461–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jelliffe R, Schumitzky A, Van Guilder M, et al. Individualizing drug dosage regimens: roles of population pharmacokinetic models, bayesian fitting, and adaptive control. Ther Drug Monit 1993; 15: 380–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jelliffe R, Maire P, Sattler F, et al. Adaptive control of drug dosage regimens: basic foundations, relevant issues, and clinical examples. Int J Biomed Comput 1994; 36: 1–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sheiner L, Beal S. Bayesian individualization of pharmacokinetics: simple implementation and comparison with non-bayesian methods. J Pharm Sci 71: 1344–8.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Vozeh S, Berger M, Wenk M, et al. Rapid prediction of individual dosage requirements for lignocaine. Clin Pharmacokinet 1984; 9: 354–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sawchuk R, Zaske D. Pharmacokinetics of dosing regimens which utilize multiple intravenous infusions: gentamicin in burn patients. J Pharmacokin Biopharm 1976; 4: 183–95.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zaske D, Bootman JL, Solem L, et al. Increased burn patient survival with individualized dosages of gentamicin. Surgery 1982; 91: 142–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jelliffe R. Explicit determination of laboratory assay error patterns: a useful aid in therapeutic drug monitoring; No. DM 89-4 (DM56). Drug Monit Toxicol 1989; 10(4): 1–6.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Neider J, Mead R. A simplex method for function minimization. Comput J 1965; 4: 308–13.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Caceci M, Cacheris W. Fitting curves to data: the simplex algorithm is the answer. BYTE Magazine 1984; 9: 340–62.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lainiotis D. Partitioning: a unifying framework for adaptive systems. Pt 1: estimation. Proc IEEE 1976; 64: 1126–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Dodge W, Jelliffe R, Richardson CJ, et al. Population pharmacokinetic models: measures of central tendency. Drug Invest 1993; 5: 206–11.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bertsekas D. Dynamic programming: deterministic and stochastic models. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall, 1987: 144–6.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Jelliffe R, Schumitzky A, Van Guilder M, et al. User manual for version 10.7 of the USC*PACK collection of PC programs. Los Angeles: Laboratory of Applied Pharmacokinetics, University of Southern California School of Medicine, 1995: 57–69.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Destache C, Meyer K, Bittner M, et al. Impact of a clinical pharmacokinetic service on patients treated with aminoglycosides: a cost-benefit analysis. Ther Drug Monit 1990; 12: 419–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Destache C, Meyer S, Rowley K. Does accepting pharmacokinetic recommendations impact hospitalization?: a costbenefit analysis. Ther Drug Monit 1990; 12: 427–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Vinks AATMM, Evers NAEM, Mathot R, et al. Impact of goaloriented model-based TDM of aminoglycosides on clinical outcome: a cost-effectiveness study [abstract]. Submitted for consideration for presentation at the 5th International Congress of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Clinical Toxicology; 1997 Nov; Vancouver; 10–4.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Jelliffe R, Buell J, Kalaba R. Reduction of digitalis toxicity by computer-assisted glycoside dosage regimens. Ann Int Med 1972; 77: 891–906.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rodman J, Jelliffe R, Kolb E, et al. Clinical studies with computer-assisted lidocaine therapy. Arch Int Med 1984; 144: 703–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Van Guilder M, Leary R, Schumitzky A, et al. Nonlinear nonparametric population codeling on a supercomputer. Supercomputer 1997 Conference; 1997 Nov 17–20; San Jose (CA).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roger W. Jelliffe
    • 1
  • Alan Schumitzky
    • 1
  • David Bayard
    • 1
  • Mark Milman
    • 1
  • Michael Van Guilder
    • 1
  • Xin Wang
    • 1
  • Feng Jiang
    • 1
  • Xavier Barbaut
    • 2
  • Pascal Maire
    • 2
  1. 1.Laboratory of Applied Pharmacokinetics, Division of Geriatric MedicineUniversity of South CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Associatio pour le Developpement du Controle Adaptif en Pharmacoinetique et en Therapie, (ADCAPT)Hopital Antoine Charial, Hospices Civils de LyonLyonFrance

Personalised recommendations