Comparison of MwPharm 3.30 (DOS) and MwPharm plus plus (Windows) Versions of Pharmacokinetic Software for PK/PD Monitoring of Vancomycin in continuous Administration

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F61988987%3A17110%2F22%3AA2302GRQ" target="_blank" >RIV/61988987:17110/22:A2302GRQ - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/full-record/WOS:000815076100278" target="_blank" >https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/full-record/WOS:000815076100278</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.36290/far.2022.014" target="_blank" >10.36290/far.2022.014</a>

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 in continuous Administration

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 continuous administration of vancomycin. Methods: Twenty adult patients with mean age 66±12 years, body weight 85±16 kg, and median dose 1,625 g/24h were repeatedly examined for vancomycin. Concentrations predicted by “#vancomycin_adult_k_C2“ (WIN1), ”#vancomycin_adult_C2“ (WIN2), ”vancomycin_adult_C2“ (WIN3), “vancomycin_C1“ (WIN4) WIN models and ”vancomycine (cont.inf.) %ahz“ (DOS1) and ”vancomycin adult“ (DOS2) DOS models were compared with the measured value and with DOS1 model. Statistics: Percentage prediction error (%PE) calculated as (predicted–measured)/measured or WIN-DOS1/DOS1, 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: %PE value varied between -7.4% and -3.2%, with the exception of WIN4, the only one-compartment model, where it was -20.8%. Best outcomes were achieved with WIN3 model. WIN1 produced the lowest %PE, RMSE and Blandt-Altman bias among the WIN models, but its correlation (Pearson’s R) was less tight (Table 1). RMSE was the same in WIN3 while %PE and Bland-Altman bias were similar, with slightly better correlation when compared to WIN1. WIN1-3 models were more similar to DOS1 as %PE was -1,4 – 1,7%, whereas %PE value between the two DOS models was 4.1 ± 13.9% (NS). DOS2 produced slightly better outcomes than DOS1. Conclusion: “vancomycin_adult_C2“ and “#vancomycin_adult_k_C2“ produced the best outcomes between WIN models. Both DOS models produced lower bias and their prediction was comparable.

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 in continuous Administration

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 continuous administration of vancomycin. Methods: Twenty adult patients with mean age 66±12 years, body weight 85±16 kg, and median dose 1,625 g/24h were repeatedly examined for vancomycin. Concentrations predicted by “#vancomycin_adult_k_C2“ (WIN1), ”#vancomycin_adult_C2“ (WIN2), ”vancomycin_adult_C2“ (WIN3), “vancomycin_C1“ (WIN4) WIN models and ”vancomycine (cont.inf.) %ahz“ (DOS1) and ”vancomycin adult“ (DOS2) DOS models were compared with the measured value and with DOS1 model. Statistics: Percentage prediction error (%PE) calculated as (predicted–measured)/measured or WIN-DOS1/DOS1, 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: %PE value varied between -7.4% and -3.2%, with the exception of WIN4, the only one-compartment model, where it was -20.8%. Best outcomes were achieved with WIN3 model. WIN1 produced the lowest %PE, RMSE and Blandt-Altman bias among the WIN models, but its correlation (Pearson’s R) was less tight (Table 1). RMSE was the same in WIN3 while %PE and Bland-Altman bias were similar, with slightly better correlation when compared to WIN1. WIN1-3 models were more similar to DOS1 as %PE was -1,4 – 1,7%, whereas %PE value between the two DOS models was 4.1 ± 13.9% (NS). DOS2 produced slightly better outcomes than DOS1. Conclusion: “vancomycin_adult_C2“ and “#vancomycin_adult_k_C2“ produced the best outcomes between WIN models. Both DOS models produced lower bias and their prediction was comparable.

Druh

J_ost - Ostatní články v recenzovaných periodicích

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 periodika

Klinická farmakologie a farmacie

ISSN

1212-7973

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

—

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

3

Stát vydavatele periodika

CZ - Česká republika

Počet stran výsledku

8

Strana od-do

85-92

Kód UT WoS článku

—

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

—