Comparison of MwPharm 3.30 (DOS) and MwPharm plus plus (Windows) Versions of Pharmacokinetic Software for PK/PD Monitoring of Vancomycin for dialyzed patients

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F61988987%3A17110%2F22%3AA2302G75" target="_blank" >RIV/61988987:17110/22:A2302G75 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/full-record/WOS:000815076100285" target="_blank" >https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/full-record/WOS:000815076100285</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

—

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Comparison of MwPharm 3.30 (DOS) and MwPharm plus plus (Windows) Versions of Pharmacokinetic Software for PK/PD Monitoring of Vancomycin for dialyzed patients

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Introduction: For a long time, the MwPharm software suite (MEDIWARE, Prague, Czech Republic / Groningen, Netherlands) has been used for PK/PD modelling in therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). Objective: The aim of this study was to find the best model in the newer Windows version of MwPharm++ 1.3.5.558 (WIN) for patient on intermittent hemodialysis. Methods: Twenty-two adult patients with mean age 65±15 years, body weight 88±25 kg, were repeatedly examined for vancomycin. Cmin and concentration before hemodialysis (CBH) predicted by Windows models “vancomycin_dialysis_c2 “ (WINd), ”vancomycin_adult_C2“ (WINa), and DOS 3.30 models ” vancomycin (dialysis)“ (DOSd), ”vancomycin adult“ (DOSa) were compared with the with the measured value and with DOSd model. Statistics: Percentage prediction error (%PE) calculated as (predicted–measured)/measured or (predicted-DOSd)/DOSd, RMSE, Blandt-Altman bias, Pearson’s coefficient of rank correlation (R), Student’s t-test. Statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism version 5.00 for Windows. Results: Models WINd and DOSd produced better Cmin prediction then respective adult models. DOSd model produced lower %PE, BlandtAltman bias and Pearson R, while slightly higher RMSE than WINd model. CBH prediction (available only in 7 cases) was better by WINa compared to WINd, while similar by DOSa and DOSd (Table 1). WINd and DOSd models use higher population V1 and Clm while lower fr than WINa and DOSa models (Table 2). V1, k12 were higher, while k21 was lower in all models than respective population data. Clm was higher in DOSa, while lower in WINa and fixed in WINd. Fr was lower in WINa and DOSa. Conclusion: DOS and WIN models are not identical despite similar name and the same population data. Dialysed models should be use for TDM in dialysed patients. DOSd model produced the best prediction while WINd was poorer. Implementation of DOSd model into WIN version of MWPharm is recommended.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Comparison of MwPharm 3.30 (DOS) and MwPharm plus plus (Windows) Versions of Pharmacokinetic Software for PK/PD Monitoring of Vancomycin for dialyzed patients

Popis výsledku anglicky

Introduction: For a long time, the MwPharm software suite (MEDIWARE, Prague, Czech Republic / Groningen, Netherlands) has been used for PK/PD modelling in therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). Objective: The aim of this study was to find the best model in the newer Windows version of MwPharm++ 1.3.5.558 (WIN) for patient on intermittent hemodialysis. Methods: Twenty-two adult patients with mean age 65±15 years, body weight 88±25 kg, were repeatedly examined for vancomycin. Cmin and concentration before hemodialysis (CBH) predicted by Windows models “vancomycin_dialysis_c2 “ (WINd), ”vancomycin_adult_C2“ (WINa), and DOS 3.30 models ” vancomycin (dialysis)“ (DOSd), ”vancomycin adult“ (DOSa) were compared with the with the measured value and with DOSd model. Statistics: Percentage prediction error (%PE) calculated as (predicted–measured)/measured or (predicted-DOSd)/DOSd, RMSE, Blandt-Altman bias, Pearson’s coefficient of rank correlation (R), Student’s t-test. Statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism version 5.00 for Windows. Results: Models WINd and DOSd produced better Cmin prediction then respective adult models. DOSd model produced lower %PE, BlandtAltman bias and Pearson R, while slightly higher RMSE than WINd model. CBH prediction (available only in 7 cases) was better by WINa compared to WINd, while similar by DOSa and DOSd (Table 1). WINd and DOSd models use higher population V1 and Clm while lower fr than WINa and DOSa models (Table 2). V1, k12 were higher, while k21 was lower in all models than respective population data. Clm was higher in DOSa, while lower in WINa and fixed in WINd. Fr was lower in WINa and DOSa. Conclusion: DOS and WIN models are not identical despite similar name and the same population data. Dialysed models should be use for TDM in dialysed patients. DOSd model produced the best prediction while WINd was poorer. Implementation of DOSd model into WIN version of MWPharm is recommended.

Druh

D - Stať ve sborníku

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30104 - Pharmacology and pharmacy

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

S - Specificky vyzkum na vysokych skolach

Rok uplatnění

2022

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název statě ve sborníku

The Abstracts

ISBN

—

ISSN

0031-6970

e-ISSN

—

Počet stran výsledku

1

Strana od-do

138-138

Název nakladatele

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG

Místo vydání

—

Místo konání akce

Atény

Datum konání akce

25. 6. 2022

Typ akce podle státní příslušnosti

WRD - Celosvětová akce

Kód UT WoS článku

000815076100285