MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3154042781 · doi:10.3390/antibiotics10050507

Aminoglycosides in the Intensive Care Unit: What Is New in Population PK Modeling?

2021· review· en· W3154042781 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexandre Duong, Chantale Simard, Yi Le Wang, David Williamson, Amélie Marsot

Bibliographic record

VenueAntibiotics · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntibiotics Pharmacokinetics and Efficacy
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de QuébecHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalUniversité de Montréal
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéRéseau Québécois de Recherche sur les Médicaments
KeywordsTobramycinAmikacinAminoglycosideMedicineDosingGentamicinPopulationPharmacokineticsRegimenIntensive care medicineIntensive care unitVolume of distributionNONMEMPharmacologyInternal medicineAntibioticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although aminoglycosides are often used as treatment for Gram-negative infections, optimal dosing regimens remain unclear, especially in ICU patients. This is due to a large between- and within-subject variability in the aminoglycoside pharmacokinetics in this population. OBJECTIVE: This review provides comprehensive data on the pharmacokinetics of aminoglycosides in patients hospitalized in the ICU by summarizing all published PopPK models in ICU patients for amikacin, gentamicin, and tobramycin. The objective was to determine the presence of a consensus on the structural model used, significant covariates included, and therapeutic targets considered during dosing regimen simulations. METHOD: A literature search was conducted in the Medline/PubMed database, using the terms: 'amikacin', 'gentamicin', 'tobramycin', 'pharmacokinetic(s)', 'nonlinear mixed effect', 'population', 'intensive care', and 'critically ill'. RESULTS: Nineteen articles were retained where amikacin, gentamicin, and tobramycin pharmacokinetics were described in six, 11, and five models, respectively. A two-compartment model was used to describe amikacin and tobramycin pharmacokinetics, whereas a one-compartment model majorly described gentamicin pharmacokinetics. The most recurrent significant covariates were renal clearance and bodyweight. Across all aminoglycosides, mean interindividual variability in clearance and volume of distribution were 41.6% and 22.0%, respectively. A common consensus for an optimal dosing regimen for each aminoglycoside was not reached. CONCLUSIONS: This review showed models developed for amikacin, from 2015 until now, and for gentamicin and tobramycin from the past decades. Despite the growing challenges of external evaluation, the latter should be more considered during model development. Further research including new covariates, additional simulated dosing regimens, and external validation should be considered to better understand aminoglycoside pharmacokinetics in ICU patients.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.010
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.114
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAntibioticsSame topicAntibiotics Pharmacokinetics and EfficacyFrench-language works237,207