title: Monte Carlo simulations based on phase 1 studies predict target attainment of ceftobiprole in nosocomial pneumonia patients: a validation study.
abstract: Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) of antimicrobial dosage regimens during drug development to derive predicted target attainment values is frequently used to choose the optimal dose for the treatment of patients in phase 2 and 3 studies. A criticism is that pharmacokinetic (PK) parameter estimates and variability in healthy volunteers are smaller than those in patients. In this study, the initial estimates of exposure from MCS were compared with actual exposure data in patients treated with ceftobiprole in a phase 3 nosocomial-pneumonia (NP) study (NTC00210964). Results of MCS using population PK data from ceftobiprole derived from 12 healthy volunteers were used (J. W. Mouton, A. Schmitt-Hoffmann, S. Shapiro, N. Nashed, N. C. Punt, Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 48:1713-1718, 2004). Actual individual exposures in patients were derived after building a population pharmacokinetic model and were used to calculate the individual exposure to ceftobiprole (the percentage of time the unbound concentration exceeds the MIC [percent fT > MIC]) for a range of MIC values. For the ranges of percent fT > MIC used to determine the dosage schedule in the phase 3 NP study, the MCS using data from a single phase 1 study in healthy volunteers accurately predicted the actual clinical exposure to ceftobiprole. The difference at 50% fT > MIC at an MIC of 4 mg/liter was 3.5% for PK-sampled patients. For higher values of percent fT > MIC and MICs, the MCS slightly underestimated the target attainment, probably due to extreme values in the PK profile distribution used in the simulations. The probability of target attainment based on MCS in healthy volunteers adequately predicted the actual exposures in a patient population, including severely ill patients.
authors: Department of Medical Microbiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands. muller.research@gmail.com
authors: Anouk E
authors: AE
authors: Muller
authors: Anne H
authors: AH
authors: Schmitt-Hoffmann
authors: Nieko
authors: N
authors: Punt
authors: Johan W
authors: JW
authors: Mouton
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D000900:Anti-Bacterial Agents / Q000097:blood / Q000493:pharmacokinetics*; D002511:Cephalosporins / Q000097:blood / Q000493:pharmacokinetics*; D017321:Clinical Trials, Phase I as Topic; D017326:Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; D003428:Cross Infection / Q000097:blood* / Q000188:drug therapy / Q000382:microbiology; D054796:Drug Dosage Calculations; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008826:Microbial Sensitivity Tests; D008875:Middle Aged; D009010:Monte Carlo Method; D018410:Pneumonia, Bacterial / Q000097:blood* / Q000188:drug therapy / Q000382:microbiology
chemical_list: D000900:Anti-Bacterial Agents; D002511:Cephalosporins; C443755:ceftobiprole
references: Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2004 May;48(5):1713-8
references: 15105125
references: Nat Rev Microbiol. 2004 Apr;2(4):289-300
references: 15031728
references: Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009 Mar;53(3):1228-30
references: 19075059
references: J Antimicrob Chemother. 2011 Feb;66(2):227-31
references: 21118912
references: Clin Ther. 2005 Jun;27(6):762-72
references: 16117983
references: Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007 Jul;51(7):2378-87
references: 17387149
references: Clin Microbiol Infect. 2012 Mar;18(3):E37-45
references: 22264314
references: Clin Infect Dis. 1998 Jan;26(1):1-10; quiz 11-2
references: 9455502
references: Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2006 Apr;50(4):1376-83
references: 16569855