Comparison of an assumption-free bayesian approach with optimal sampling schedule to a maximum a posteriori approach for personalizing cyclophosphamide dosing

Pharmacotherapy

Volumn 34, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 330-335

  Laínez, José M ^a   Orcun, Seza ^b   Pekny, Joseph F ^a   Reklaitis, Gintaras V ^a   Suvannasankha, Attaya ^c   Fausel, Christopher ^c   Anaissie, Elias J ^d   Blau, Gary E ^a  

^a Purdue University   (United States)

^b Seza Orcun Consulting Services   (United States)

^c INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

bayesian modeling; cyclophosphamide treatment; dose individualization; Pharmacokinetics; therapeutic drug monitoring

Indexed keywords

CARBOXYETHYLPHOSPHORAMIDE MUSTARD; CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE; HYDROXYCYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ARTICLE; ASSUMPTION FREE BAYESIAN APPROACH; BLOOD SAMPLING; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DOSAGE SCHEDULE COMPARISON; DOSE RESPONSE; DRUG BLOOD LEVEL; DRUG COST; DRUG DOSE REGIMEN; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG METABOLISM; HUMAN; MAXIMUM A POSTERIORI APPROACH; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE; PROBABILITY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STEM CELL TRANSPLANTATION; BAYES THEOREM;

BAYES THEOREM; CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE; HUMANS; INDIVIDUALIZED MEDICINE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 84898917272     PISSN: 02770008     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/phar.1346     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Slattery JT, Kalhorn TF, McDonald GB, Lambert K, Buckner CD, Bensinger WI, et al. Conditioning regimen-dependent disposition of cyclophosphamide and hydroxycyclophosphamide in human marrow transplantation patients. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14: 1484-94.
2. Hassan M, Svensson USH, Ljungman P, Björkstrand OM, Bielenstein M, Abdel-Rehim M, et al. A mechanism-based pharmacokinetic-enzyme model for cyclophosphamide autoinduction in breast cancer patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1999; 48: 1365-2125.
3. Qiu R, Yao A, Vicini P, McDonald GB, Batchelder AL, Bouvier ME, et al. Diminishing the risk of nonrelapse mortality in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: prediction of exposure to the cyclophosphamide metabolite Carboxyethylphosphoramide mustard. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2004; 76: 270-80.
4. McCune JS, Batchelder A, Guthrie KA, Witherspoon R, Appelbaum FR, Phillips B, et al. Personalized dosing of cyclophosphamide in the total body irradiation-cyclophosphamide conditioning regimen: a phase II trial in patients with hematologic malignancy. Clinical Pharm Therap 2009; 85: 615-22.
5. Salinger DH, McCune JS, Ren AG, Shen DD, Slattery JT, Phillips B, et al. Real-time dose adjustment of cyclophosphamide in a preparative regimen for hematopoietic cell transplant: a Bayesian pharmacokinetic approach. Clin Cancer Res 2006; 12: 4888-98.
6. McDonald GB, Slattery JT, Bouvier ME, Ren S, Batchelder AL, Kalhorn T, et al. Cyclophosphamide metabolism, liver toxicity, and mortality following hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Blood 2003; 101: 2043-8.
7. Poisot T,. The digitize Package: extracting numerical data from scatterplots. R J 2001; 3: 25-6.
8. Laínez JM, Blau G, Mockus L, Orcun S, Reklaitis GV,. Pharmacokinetic based design of individualized dosage regimens using a Bayesian approach. Ind Eng Chem Res 2011; 50: 5114-30.
9. R Development Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing; R foundation for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Development Core Team, ISBN 3-900051-07-0; 2008.
10. Blau G, Lasinski M, Orcun S, Hsu SH, Caruthers J, Delgass N, et al. High fidelity mathematical model building with experimental data: a Bayesian Approach. Comput Chem Eng 2008; 32: 971-89.
11. Gilks WR, Richardson S, Spiegelhalter DJ, eds. Markov chain Monte Carlo in practice. London: Chapman and Hall; 1996.
12. FDA. Guidance for industry: population pharmacokinetics. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 1999.
13. Ette EI, Williams P,. Population pharmacokinetics I: background, concepts and models. Ann Pharm 2004; 38: 1702-6.
14. Mallet A,. A maximum likelihood estimation method for random coefficient regression models. Biometrika 1986; 73: 645-56.
15. Martin AD, Quinn KM, Park JH,. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) Package. Washington University in, St. Louis, Mo, and University of California at Berkeley; 2010. Available from http://mcmcpack.wustl.edu/. Accessed June 11, 2013.
16. Soetaert K, Petzoldt T, Setzer RW,. Solving differential equations in R. R J 2010; 2: 5-15.
17. Genz A, Bretz F, Hothorn T, Miwa T, Mi X, Leisch F, et al. mvtnorm: Multivariate Normal and T Distribution. 2011. Available from http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/mvtnorm/index.html. Accessed June 11, 2013.
18. Eddelbuettel D, François R,. Rcpp: seamless R and C++ Integration. J Stat Softw 2011; 40: 1-18.
19. Sklyar O,. Inline: Inline C, C++, Fortran function calls from R. 2011. Available from http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/inline/index.html. Accessed June 11, 2013.
20. Laínez JM, Mockus L, Orcun S, Blau G, Reklaitis GV,. A decomposition strategy for the variational inference of complex systems. Technometrics 2012 (submitted for publication).
21. Laínez JM, Reklaitis GV,. A stochastic optimization approach for the design of individualized dosage regimens. AIChE J 2013. doi 10.1002/aic.14100.