↓ Skip to main content

Stochastic Process Pharmacodynamics: Dose Timing in Neonatal Gentamicin Therapy as an Example

Overview of attention for article published in The AAPS Journal, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
Title
Stochastic Process Pharmacodynamics: Dose Timing in Neonatal Gentamicin Therapy as an Example
Published in
The AAPS Journal, February 2015
DOI 10.1208/s12248-014-9715-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tomas Radivoyevitch, Nopphon Siranart, Lynn Hlatky, Rainer Sachs

Abstract

We consider dosing regimens designed to cure patients by eradicating colony forming units (CFU) such as bacteria. In the field of "population" pharmaco-kinetics/dynamics (PK/PD), inter-individual variability (IIV) of patients is estimated using model parameter statistical distributions. We consider a more probabilistic approach to IIV called stochastic process theory, motivated by the fact that tumor treatment planning uses both approaches. Stochastic process PD can supply additional insights and suggest different dosing regimens due to its emphasis on the probability of complete CFU eradication and its predictions on "pure chance" fluctuations of CFU number per patient when treatment has reduced this integer to less than ~100. To exemplify the contrast between stochastic process PD models and standard deterministic PD models, which track only average CFU number, we analyze, neglecting immune responses, neonatal intravenous gentamicin dosing regimens directed against Escherichia coli. Our stochastic calculations predict that the first dose is crucial for CFU eradication. For example, a single 6 mg/kg dose is predicted to have a higher eradication probability than four daily 4 mg/kg doses. We conclude: (1) neonatal gentamicin dosing regimens with larger first doses but smaller total doses deserve investigation; (2) in general, if standard PK/PD models predict average CFU number drops substantially below 100, the models should be modified to incorporate stochastic effects more accurately, and will then usually make more favorable, or less unfavorable, predictions for front boosting ("hit hard early"). Various caveats against over-interpreting the calculations are given.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 23%
Student > Bachelor 2 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 15%
Student > Master 2 15%
Other 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 2 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 2 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 8%
Physics and Astronomy 1 8%
Other 2 15%
Unknown 3 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 February 2015.
All research outputs
#18,398,261
of 22,789,076 outputs
Outputs from The AAPS Journal
#1,100
of 1,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#256,880
of 352,563 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AAPS Journal
#20
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,789,076 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,287 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 352,563 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.