Advertisement

A Critique of Pharmacokinetic Calculators for Drug Dosing Individualization

  • Slobodan M. JankovićEmail author
Current Opinion

Abstract

The ‘one-dose-fits-all’ approach where drug dosing regimen is prescribed according to recommendations from a summary of product characteristics is not appropriate for many patients whose clinical characteristics significantly differ from the most frequent ones in a population, as it cannot guarantee optimal exposure of target tissues to the drug. Our aim here is to provide a concise review of pharmacokinetic calculators currently available for clinical use and, at the same time, to suggest the minimum standards that they should satisfy to be routinely used in clinical practice. A systematic search of Medline, Ebsco, Scopus, Scindeks, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar was performed to find publications about available pharmacokinetic calculators for drug dose individualization. Theoretically well-founded and mathematically correct calculators for many drugs are available, but only a few calculators for specific drugs have been validated in clinical practice or through clinical trials, and the results published in peer-reviewed journals. The majority of available pharmacokinetic calculators for drug dosing individualization remain unvalidated, i.e., there is no evidence of their efficacy and safety in real-life clinical settings. Pharmacokinetic calculators for drug dose individualization are irreplaceable tools for achieving precision medicine, where dosing regimens are tailored to the needs and personal characteristics of each patient, maximizing efficacy and minimizing toxicity.

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

This research was supported by Ministarstvo Prosvete, Nauke i Tehnološkog Razvoja (Grant 175007).

Conflict of Interest

The author has no conflict of interest to declare.

References

  1. 1.
    Lesko LJ, Schmidt S. Individualization of drug therapy: history, present state, and opportunities for the future. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2012;92(4):458–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Groenland SL, Mathijssen RHJ, Beijnen JH, Huitema ADR, Steeghs N. Individualized dosing of oral targeted therapies in oncology is crucial in the era of precision medicine. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2019;75(9):1309–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tucker GT. Personalized drug dosage – closing the loop. Pharm Res. 2017;34(8):1539–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jang SH, Yan Z, Lazor JA. Therapeutic drug monitoring: a patient management tool for precision medicine. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2016;99(2):148–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bondareva IB, Jelliffe RW, Andreeva OV, Bondareva KI. Predictability of individualized dosage regimens of carbamazepine and valproate mono- and combination therapy. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2011;36(5):625–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rousseau A, Marquet P. Application of pharmacokinetic modelling to the routine therapeutic drug monitoring of anticancer drugs. Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 2002;16(4):253–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cremers S, Guha N, Shine B. Therapeutic drug monitoring in the era of precision medicine: opportunities! Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2016;82(4):900–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dubinsky MC, Phan BL, Singh N, Rabizadeh S, Mould DR. Pharmacokinetic dashboard-recommended dosing is different than standard of care dosing in infliximab-treated pediatric IBD patients. AAPS J. 2017;19(1):215–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Begg EJ, Chin PKL. A unified pharmacokinetic approach to individualized drug dosing. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2012;73(3):335–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    DoseMeRx - World’s first precision dosing software for clinical practice [Internet]. DoseMeRx. https://doseme-rx.com/introducing-dosemerx. Accessed 25 July 2019.
  11. 11.
    Medical calculators, dosage calculators, clinical calculations, GlobalRPH [Internet]. GlobalRPH. https://globalrph.com/medcalcs/. Accessed 25 July 2019.
  12. 12.
    Antibiotic Kinetics pharmacokinetics software for Windows Palm and Pocket PC [Internet]. http://www.rxkinetics.com/abpk.html. Accessed 25 July 2019.
  13. 13.
    Mediware a.s. [Internet]. http://www.mediware.cz/en/mwpharm/. Accessed 25 July 2019.
  14. 14.
    Precise PK—Institutionally trusted medical software [Internet]. PrecisePK. https://precisepk.com/. Accessed 25 July 2019.
  15. 15.
    BestDose software [Internet]. http://www.lapk.org/bestdose.php. Accessed 25 July 2019.
  16. 16.
    ID-ODS [Internet].https://app.id-ods.org/#!/sign-in. Accessed 25 July 2019.
  17. 17.
    InsightRX—Team [Internet]. https://insight-rx.com/team. Accessed 25 July 2019.
  18. 18.
    Warfarin Dose Revision [Internet]. Warfarin dose revision. http://www.warfarindoserevision.com. Accessed 25 July 2019.
  19. 19.
    NextDose Bayesian forecasting dose calculator [Internet]. https://www.nextdose.org/. Accessed 25 July 2019.
  20. 20.
    Laínez JM, Blau G, Mockus L, Orçun S, Reklaitis GV. Pharmacokinetic based design of individualized dosage regimens using a bayesian approach. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2011;50(9):5114–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jelliffe RW, Schumitzky A, Van Guilder M, Liu M, Hu L, Maire P, et al. Individualizing drug dosage regimens: roles of population pharmacokinetic and dynamic models, Bayesian fitting, and adaptive control. Ther Drug Monit. 1993;15(5):380–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Burton ME, Brater DC, Chen PS, Day RB, Huber PJ, Vasko MR. A Bayesian feedback method of aminoglycoside dosing. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1985;37(3):349–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Drennan P, Doogue M, van Hal SJ, Chin P. Bayesian therapeutic drug monitoring software: past, present and future. Int J Pharmacokinet [Internet]. 2018;3(4):109–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Felton TW, Roberts JA, Lodise TP, Van Guilder M, Boselli E, Neely MN, et al. Individualization of piperacillin dosing for critically ill patients: dosing software to optimize antimicrobial therapy. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58(7):4094–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Burgard M, Sandaradura I, van Hal SJ, Stacey S, Hennig S. Evaluation of tobramycin exposure predictions in three bayesian forecasting programmes compared with current clinical practice in children and adults with cystic fibrosis. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2018;57(8):1017–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Holford NHG, Buclin T. Safe and effective variability-a criterion for dose individualization. Ther Drug Monit. 2012;34(5):565–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Getachew H, Tadesse Y, Shibeshi W. Drug dosage adjustment in hospitalized patients with renal impairment at Tikur Anbessa specialized hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. BMC Nephrol. 2015;16:158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ortiz-Prado E, Fors M, Henriquez-Trujillo AR, Cevallos-Sierra GH, Barreto-Grimaldos A, Simbaña-Rivera K, et al. Attitudes and perceptions of medical doctors towards the local health system: a questionnaire survey in Ecuador. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gulbrandsen P, Østbye T, Lyna P, Dolor RJ, Tulsky JA, Alexander SC, et al. The influence of physician communication style on overweight patients’ perceptions of length of encounter and physician being rushed. Fam Med. 2012;44(3):183–8.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fuchs A, Csajka C, Thoma Y, Buclin T, Widmer N. Benchmarking therapeutic drug monitoring software: a review of available computer tools. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2013;52(1):9–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Roche N, Campbell JD, Krishnan JA, Brusselle G, Chisholm A, Bjermer L, et al. Quality standards in respiratory real-life effectiveness research: the REal Life EVidence AssessmeNt Tool (RELEVANT): report from the Respiratory Effectiveness Group-European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Task Force. Clin Transl Allergy. 2019;9:20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Askheim C, Sandset T, Engebretsen E. Who cares? The lost legacy of Archie Cochrane. Med Humanit. 2017;43(1):41–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    McKenzie JE, Salanti G, Lewis SC, Altman DG. Meta-analysis and the Cochrane Collaboration: 20 years of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. Syst Rev. 2013;2:80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Medical SciencesUniversity of KragujevacKragujevacSerbia

Personalised recommendations