Dexmedetomidine Clearance Decreases with Increasing Drug Exposure: Implications for Current Dosing Regimens and Target-controlled Infusion Models Assuming Linear Pharmacokinetics

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ricardo Alvarez-Jimenez ◽  
Maud A. S. Weerink ◽  
Laura N. Hannivoort ◽  
Hong Su ◽  
Michel M. R. F. Struys ◽  
...  

Background Numerous pharmacokinetic models have been published aiming at more accurate and safer dosing of dexmedetomidine. The vast majority of the developed models underpredict the measured plasma concentrations with respect to the target concentration, especially at plasma concentrations higher than those used in the original studies. The aim of this article was to develop a dexmedetomidine pharmacokinetic model in healthy adults emphasizing linear versus nonlinear kinetics. Methods The data of two previously published clinical trials with stepwise increasing dexmedetomidine target-controlled infusion were pooled to build a pharmacokinetic model using the NONMEM software package (ICON Development Solutions, USA). Data from 48 healthy subjects, included in a stratified manner, were utilized to build the model. Results A three-compartment mamillary model with nonlinear elimination from the central compartment was superior to a model assuming linear pharmacokinetics. Covariates included in the final model were age, sex, and total body weight. Cardiac output did not explain between-subject or within-subject variability in dexmedetomidine clearance. The results of a simulation study based on the final model showed that at concentrations up to 2 ng · ml–1, the predicted dexmedetomidine plasma concentrations were similar between the currently available Hannivoort model assuming linear pharmacokinetics and the nonlinear model developed in this study. At higher simulated plasma concentrations, exposure increased nonlinearly with target concentration due to the decreasing dexmedetomidine clearance with increasing plasma concentrations. Simulations also show that currently approved dosing regimens in the intensive care unit may potentially lead to higher-than-expected dexmedetomidine plasma concentrations. Conclusions This study developed a nonlinear three-compartment pharmacokinetic model that accurately described dexmedetomidine plasma concentrations. Dexmedetomidine may be safely administered up to target-controlled infusion targets under 2 ng · ml–1 using the Hannivoort model, which assumed linear pharmacokinetics. Consideration should be taken during long-term administration and during an initial loading dose when following the dosing strategies of the current guidelines. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New

2000 ◽  
Vol 93 (3) ◽  
pp. 653-661 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierre C. Pandin ◽  
Francis Cantraine ◽  
Patricia Ewalenko ◽  
Stéphane C. Deneu ◽  
Eddy Coussaert ◽  
...  

Background The predictive accuracy of target concentration infusions of propofol has been documented only for less than 4 h, and no prospective study of sufentanil target controlled infusion is available. The authors investigated the predictive accuracy of pharmacokinetic models for propofol and sufentanil coadministered during long-lasting surgery. Methods Ten patients, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I and II, were studied during extended cervicofacial surgery. Target controlled infusion of propofol and sufentanil was administered during surgery using decisional algorithms, taking into consideration pain assessment, hemodynamic changes, and peroperative blood losses. Intrasubject data analysis included calculation of performance error, median performance error, median absolute performance error, divergence, and wobble. Results The range of plasma target concentrations was 2-5 microgram/ml for propofol and 0.2-1 ng/ml for sufentanil. Median performance error was -12.1% for propofol and -10% for sufentanil. The wobble values were 11.6% and 22.3% for propofol and sufentanil, respectively. The pharmacokinetic sets used slightly overpredicted the concentrations, with negative values of divergence of 2.92% and 0.22% units/h for propofol and sufentanil, for a mean infusion period of 762 min. Conclusions This prospective study demonstrates the predictive accuracy of the pharmacokinetic model for sufentanil infusion and confirms that for propofol during long-lasting surgery using standardized rules for the management of target controlled infusion and blood loss replacement.


Author(s):  
Vesa Cheng ◽  
Mohd H. Abdul-Aziz ◽  
Fay Burrows ◽  
Hergen Buscher ◽  
Young-Jae Cho ◽  
...  

Our study aimed to describe the population pharmacokinetics (PK) of vancomycin in critically ill patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), including those receiving concomitant renal replacement therapy (RRT). Dosing simulations were used to recommend maximally effective and safe dosing regimens. Serial vancomycin plasma concentrations were measured and analysed using a population PK approach on Pmetrics ®. The final model was used to identify dosing regimens that achieved target exposures of area under the curve (AUC 0-24 ) of 400 – 700 mg·h/L at steady state. Twenty-two patients were enrolled, of which 11 patients received concomitant RRT. In the non-RRT patients, the median creatinine clearance (CrCL) was 75 mL/min and the mean daily dose of vancomycin was 25.5 mg/kg. Vancomycin was well described in a two-compartment model with CrCL, the presence of RRT and total body weight found as significant predictors of clearance and central volume of distribution (V c ). The mean vancomycin renal clearance and V c were 3.20 L/h and 29.7 L respectively, while the clearance for patients on RRT was 0.15 L/h. ECMO variables did not improve the final covariate model. We found that recommended dosing regimens for critically ill adult patients not on ECMO can be safely and effectively used in those on ECMO. Loading doses of at least 25 mg/kg followed by maintenance doses of 12.5 – 20 mg/kg 12-hourly are associated with a 97 – 98% probability of efficacy and 11 – 12% probability of toxicity, in patients with normal renal function. Therapeutic drug monitoring along with reductions in dosing are warranted for patients with renal impairment and those with concomitant RRT.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Sarah Jane Commander ◽  
Daniel Gonzalez ◽  
Karan R. Kumar ◽  
Tracy Spears ◽  
Michael Cohen-Wolkowiez ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction: Hypotension is an adverse event that may be related to systemic exposure of milrinone; however, the true exposure–safety relationship is unknown. Methods: Using the Pediatric Trials Network multicentre repository, we identified children ≤17 years treated with milrinone. Hypotension was defined according to age, using the Pediatric Advanced Life Support guidelines. Clinically significant hypotension was defined as hypotension with concomitant lactate >3 mg/dl. A prior population pharmacokinetic model was used to simulate milrinone exposures to evaluate exposure–safety relationships. Results: We included 399 children with a median (quarter 1, quarter 3) age of 1 year (0,5) who received 428 intravenous doses of milrinone (median infusion rate 0.31 mcg/kg/min [0.29,0.5]). Median maximum plasma milrinone concentration was 110.7 ng/ml (48.4,206.2). Median lowest systolic and diastolic blood pressures were 74 mmHg (60,85) and 35 mmHg (25,42), respectively. At least 1 episode of hypotension occurred in 178 (45%) subjects; clinically significant hypotension occurred in 10 (2%). The maximum simulated milrinone plasma concentrations were higher in subjects with clinically significant hypotension (251 ng/ml [129,329]) versus with hypotension alone (86 ng/ml [44, 173]) versus without hypotension (122 ng/ml [57, 208], p = 0.002); however, this relationship was not retained on multivariable analysis (odds ratio 1.01; 95% confidence interval 0.998, 1.01). Conclusions: We successfully leveraged a population pharmacokinetic model and electronic health record data to evaluate the relationship between simulated plasma concentration of milrinone and systemic hypotension occurrence, respectively, supporting the broader applicability of our novel, efficient, and cost-effective study design for examining drug exposure–response and –safety relationships.


Author(s):  
David Busse ◽  
André Schaeftlein ◽  
Alexander Solms ◽  
Luis Ilia ◽  
Robin Michelet ◽  
...  

Abstract Purpose Systematic comparison of analysis methods of clinical microdialysis data for impact on target-site drug exposure and response. Methods 39 individuals received a 500 mg levofloxacin short-term infusion followed by 24-h dense sampling in plasma and microdialysate collection in interstitial space fluid (ISF). ISF concentrations were leveraged using non-compartmental (NCA) and compartmental analysis (CA) via (ii) relative recovery correction at midpoint of the collection interval (midpoint-NCA, midpoint-CA) and (ii) dialysate-based integrals of time (integral-CA). Exposure and adequacy of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) therapy via pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic target-attainment (PTA) analysis were compared between approaches. Results Individual AUCISF estimates strongly varied for midpoint-NCA and midpoint-CA (≥52.3%CV) versus integral-CA (≤32.9%CV) owing to separation of variability in PK parameters (midpoint-CA = 46.5%–143%CVPK, integral-CA = 26.4%–72.6%CVPK) from recovery-related variability only in integral-CA (41.0%–50.3%CVrecovery). This also led to increased variability of AUCplasma for midpoint-CA (56.0%CV) versus midpoint-NCA and integral-CA (≤33.0%CV), and inaccuracy of predictive model performance of midpoint-CA in plasma (visual predictive check). PTA analysis translated into 33% of evaluated patient cases being at risk of incorrectly rejecting recommended dosing regimens at CAP-related epidemiological cut-off values. Conclusions Integral-CA proved most appropriate to characterise clinical pharmacokinetics- and microdialysis-related variability. Employing this knowledge will improve the understanding of drug target-site PK for therapeutic decision-making.


1993 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luis Granero ◽  
Jesús Chesa-Jiménez ◽  
Víctor Monserrat ◽  
Mercedes Almela ◽  
María-José Gimeno ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document