PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of aacPermissionsJournals.ASM.orgJournalAAC ArticleJournal InfoAuthorsReviewers
 
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2017 April; 61(4): e01783-16.
Published online 2017 March 24. Prepublished online 2017 January 30. doi:  10.1128/AAC.01783-16
PMCID: PMC5365678

Pharmacokinetic Modeling and Limited Sampling Strategies Based on Healthy Volunteers for Monitoring of Ertapenem in Patients with Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis

ABSTRACT

Ertapenem is a broad-spectrum carbapenem antibiotic whose activity against Mycobacterium tuberculosis is being explored. Carbapenems have antibacterial activity when the plasma concentration exceeds the MIC at least 40% of the time (40% TMIC). To assess the 40% TMIC in multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) patients, a limited sampling strategy was developed using a population pharmacokinetic model based on data for healthy volunteers. A two-compartment population pharmacokinetic model was developed with data for 42 healthy volunteers using an iterative two-stage Bayesian method. External validation was performed by Bayesian fitting of the model developed with data for volunteers to the data for individual MDR-TB patients (in which the fitted values of the area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h [AUC0–24, fit values] were used) using the population model developed for volunteers as a prior. A Monte Carlo simulation (n = 1,000) was used to evaluate limited sampling strategies. Additionally, the 40% TMIC with the free fraction (f 40% TMIC) of ertapenem in MDR-TB patients was estimated with the population pharmacokinetic model. The population pharmacokinetic model that was developed was shown to overestimate the area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC0–24) in MDR-TB patients by 6.8% (range, −17.2 to 30.7%). The best-performing limited sampling strategy, which had a time restriction of 0 to 6 h, was found to be sampling at 1 and 5 h (r2 = 0.78, mean prediction error = −0.33%, root mean square error = 5.5%). Drug exposure was overestimated by a mean percentage of 4.2% (range, −15.2 to 23.6%). When a free fraction of 5% was considered and the MIC was set at 0.5 mg/liter, the minimum f 40% TMIC would have been exceeded in 9 out of 12 patients. A population pharmacokinetic model and limited sampling strategy, developed using data from healthy volunteers, were shown to be adequate to predict ertapenem exposure in MDR-TB patients.

KEYWORDS: ertapenem, tuberculosis, pharmacokinetics, pharmacokinetic model, limited sampling, multidrug resistance

INTRODUCTION

Ertapenem (ETP) is a broad-spectrum carbapenem antibiotic used against a range of infectious diseases (1). Like for all other beta-lactam antimicrobial products, the efficacy of ertapenem is characterized by time-dependent killing. Carbapenems have antibacterial activity when the plasma concentration exceeds the MIC at least 40% of the time (40% TMIC) (1, 2). Although it has not yet been studied in tuberculosis (TB) patients, the 40% TMIC with the free fraction (f 40% TMIC) of drug is expected to be an important pharmacodynamic parameter (3). Interest in the use of carbapenems in combination with clavulanic acid was created when it was shown that they have activity in a murine model of TB (3). Additionally, a recent study showed that carbapenems efficiently inactivated peptidoglycan cross-linking in Mycobacterium tuberculosis (3, 4), and a recent study of the early bactericidal activity of meropenem and amoxicillin-clavulanic acid showed that carbapenems have activity in patients with TB (5). A new susceptibility testing method to estimate the MIC of ertapenem was recently introduced (6), and it was shown that ertapenem might be more potent in vitro than was previously thought because its chemical degradation had never been taken into account (3). To date, only a limited number of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) patients have been treated with ertapenem as part of a multidrug regimen. On the basis of these data, the drug appeared to be well tolerated during prolonged treatment (7, 8). However, ertapenem has not yet been added to the World Health Organization (WHO) list of anti-TB drugs, in contrast to imipenem and meropenem.

The pharmacokinetics of ertapenem have typically been studied in healthy volunteers (9), people with obesity (10, 11), patients with renal failure (12,14), and critically ill patients with various pathologies (15,17). Lower levels of drug exposure were observed in obese individuals (11), and an increase in the dosing interval was needed in patients with renal insufficiency with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of less than 30 ml/min/1.73 m2 (13), suggesting that the optimal dose of ertapenem is different in patients with different health conditions. A recent study on the pharmacokinetics of drugs in MDR-TB patients suggested that there was substantial variability in these patients (7).

For studies exploring the use of ertapenem against M. tuberculosis, it would be valuable to assess the f 40% TMIC of ertapenem in patients. To calculate the f 40% TMIC, a good indication of the plasma concentration profile is mandatory. However, measurement of the plasma concentration over the entire 24-h dosing interval is time-consuming, expensive, and burdensome for the patients. A limited sampling strategy can be used to predict this plasma concentration profile through the use of a population pharmacokinetic model, as has been done for other anti-TB drugs (18,21).

The aim of this study was to develop a population pharmacokinetic model and a limited sampling strategy on the basis of data from healthy volunteers, in order to estimate ertapenem exposure in MDR-TB patients.

RESULTS

Data set.

Data for 42 healthy volunteers were used to develop the population pharmacokinetic model. Since blood samples were collected from MDR-TB patients for another purpose, no data from between 5 and 8 h after drug administration were available.

All baseline characteristics of the healthy volunteers and the MDR-TB patients except for age were shown to differ significantly (P < 0.05) (Table 1). The median age of the volunteers was 31 years (range, 23 to 38 years), and the body mass index was 24.5 kg/m2 (range, 23.6 to 26.2 kg/m2).

TABLE 1
Baseline characteristics of healthy volunteers versus MDR-TB patients

Pharmacokinetic model. (i) Development of pharmacokinetic model with data for volunteers.

The selection of the two-compartmental model was based on Akaike information criterion (AIC) values for one-compartment (AIC = 1,280) and two-compartment (AIC = −1,073) models (22). The final population pharmacokinetic model parameters developed with data for healthy volunteers (n = 42) are shown in Table 2.

TABLE 2
Pharmacokinetic population model developed with data for the volunteersa

The area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC0–24) for all except three healthy volunteers (AUC0–24, n − 3) estimated with the population pharmacokinetic model values in the internal validation was compared with the area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h used as a reference value (AUC0–24, ref). The results, shown in Fig. 1, were underestimated by a mean value of 0.3% (range, −8.1 to 7.6%). The observed AUC0–24, ref and the model-calculated AUC0–24, n − 3 for ertapenem were assessed for agreement using Passing and Bablok regression (Fig. 2).

FIG 1
Internal validation of the population pharmacokinetic model. The Bland-Altman plot shows the agreement between AUC0–24, n − 3 and AUC0–24, ref. Mean of all, the mean AUC for both AUC0–24, n − 3 and AUC0–24, ...
FIG 2
Passing and Bablok regression. The plot shows the agreement between AUC0–24, ref and AUC0–24, n − 3 estimated with the population pharmacokinetic model (dotted lines, 95% confidence interval [CI]).

(ii) Population pharmacokinetic parameters for TB patients compared to healthy volunteers.

The pharmacokinetic parameters for 18 healthy volunteers, who received 1 g of ertapenem, compared to those for TB patients are shown in Table 3. The fitted AUC0–24 (AUC0–24, fit) values for the MDR-TB patient data were underestimated by a mean of 6.8% (range, −17.2 to 30.7%) when the values were compared with the AUC0–24, ref values. The values of AUC0–24, fit correlated well with the values of AUC0–24, ref, as determined by a Bland-Altman analysis. The results are shown in Fig. 3.

TABLE 3
Pharmacokinetic parameters for volunteers who received a 1-g dose and MDR-TB patients
FIG 3
External validation of the population pharmacokinetic model. The Bland-Altman plot shows the agreement between AUC0–24, ref and AUC0–24, fit estimated with the population pharmacokinetic model. Mean of All, the mean AUC for both AUC0–24, ...

Limited sampling strategies.

Using the population pharmacokinetic model, limited sampling strategies were evaluated for restrictions of the dosing interval of from 0 to 6 h, 0 to 12 h, and 0 to 24 h. The r2, bias, and root mean square error (RMSE) values were subsequently determined. For each dosing interval and for one, two, or three sampling time points, the limited sampling strategies providing the best performance according to the values of RMSE and bias are shown in Table 4. All limited sampling strategies met the bias and RMSE criteria. The use of three sampling time points, at 1, 4 and 9 h, enabled the best prediction of ertapenem exposure, reflected by the AUC0–24 obtained by the limited sampling strategy (AUC0–24, LSS) when the values for bias, RMSE, and r2 were considered (r2 = 0.92, mean prediction error [MPE] = −0.46%, RMSE = 4.7%). However, due to the lack of clinical data from within these time intervals and the clinical relevance of the sampling times within a certain amount of time, it would be preferred to use sampling time points of 1, 3, and 5 h (r2 = 0.83, RMSE = 4.7%, MPE = −0.39%).

TABLE 4
Best-performing limited sampling strategiesa

On the basis of clinical suitability, the use of two sampling time points with a time restriction of 0 to 6 h, a limited sampling strategy at 1 and 5 h showed the lowest RMSE (5.5%) and a low MPE (−0.33%). AUC0–24, LSS values, estimated by applying this two-sampling-time-point limited sampling strategy, were compared with AUC0–24, ref values using Bland-Altman analysis, and a bias in AUC0–24, LSS of 4.2% (range, −15.2 to 23.6%) was shown (Fig. 4).

FIG 4
Validation of the limited sampling strategy. The Bland-Altman plot shows the agreement between the AUC0–24 for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis patients obtained from the population pharmacokinetic model by applying the limited sampling strategy ...

Percent TMIC.

When a free fraction of 5% was considered and the MIC was set at 0.5 mg/liter, the minimum f 40% TMIC (range, 6.8 h to 19.7 h) would have been exceeded in 9 out of 12 patients; thereby, ertapenem would have a sufficient therapeutic effect in MDR-TB patients with once daily dosing.

DISCUSSION

This is the first study showing that a population pharmacokinetic model of ertapenem based on data for healthy volunteers can predict the pharmacokinetics of ertapenem in patients with MDR-TB, even though the baseline characteristics of both healthy volunteers and MDR-TB patients differed significantly (Table 1). We showed that the AUC0–24 for MDR-TB patients can be estimated with this population pharmacokinetic model with a mean overestimation of 6.8% (range, −17.2 to 30.7%).

The robustness of this population pharmacokinetic model was validated using an n − 3 cross-validation, which showed an underestimation of 0.3%. The limited sampling strategy that we present here can be used to assess the level of exposure to ertapenem in individual TB patients with limited treatment options. Moreover, the model and the limited sampling strategy can be used to evaluate the level of exposure to ertapenem in phase II studies evaluating the early bactericidal activity of ertapenem in TB patients. Such a study is urgently needed to provide data on the efficacy of this potentially attractive drug with activity against M. tuberculosis.

In the population pharmacokinetic model, multiple doses were treated as single doses on day 1 to avoid duplication, as an earlier study found that there was no accumulation of ertapenem following dosing over 8 days, and the mean plasma concentrations were found to be very similar on day 1 as well as on day 8 (8).

Pharmacokinetic modeling of ertapenem has been performed in previous studies (10,17, 23,25), but it has never been performed for application to the treatment of MDR-TB. Comparing healthy volunteers and TB patients, we found that there was a low level of variability in the pharmacokinetic parameters between the two groups; in contrast, the pharmacokinetic parameters of other antimicrobial drugs show high levels of variability (18, 19). This might be explained by the parenteral route of administration of ertapenem, in which there is no loss of ertapenem due to absorption. Several studies looking at the level of exposure to ertapenem have shown that it varies greatly among patients (13, 14). There was little variability in the values of the pharmacokinetic parameters among the MDR-TB patients (Table 3).

A limited sampling strategy using two sampling time points is favored, as it would place the smallest burden on patients because it is minimally invasive and the least time-consuming. Additionally, less time between sampling time points is more feasible in clinical practice, since it makes the collection of samples at incorrect times less likely. Moreover, a limitation of this study is that after 6 h, sparse data were available; therefore, the results obtained after 6 h were less well substantiated by clinical data.

As there are limited options for treating MDR-TB and resistance to antibiotics is an emerging problem, we think that it is time to start assessing the efficacy of ertapenem in MDR-TB patients in a phase II clinical trial testing early bactericidal activity. The limited sampling strategy developed here can be used to evaluate drug exposure and thereby reduce study costs and the burdens for study subjects.

Conclusion.

A pharmacokinetic model and a limited sampling strategy based on data for healthy volunteers were able to predict the AUC0–24 and f 40% TMIC in MDR-TB patients. This model can be used in phase II studies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was based on two data sets. The first data set was comprised of data for 42 healthy volunteers receiving 0.25- to 2-g intravenous doses of ertapenem in five clinical studies (9). For comparison of the population pharmacokinetic model for healthy volunteers with that for MDR-TB patients, we used only the data for healthy volunteers receiving ertapenem at 1 g. The second data set comprised a retrospectively collected set of data for patients with MDR-TB receiving 1 g of ertapenem administered once daily via a 30-min infusion at the Tuberculosis Center Beatrixoord, University Medical Center Groningen, The Netherlands, between 1 December 2010 and 1 March 2013 (7). Samples for determination of plasma ertapenem concentrations were collected at steady state before administration and at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 12 h after administration. Plasma ertapenem concentrations were analyzed by a validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method (26). Both data sets included demographic and medical data, such as age at the start of treatment, height, body weight, and the serum creatinine concentration at the time of pharmacokinetic assessment. (The study was evaluated by the Medical Ethical Review Board of the University Medical Center Groningen [METc 2013-492]. The need for written informed consent was waived for the retrospective collection and analysis of anonymous data because it was not required under Dutch Law [WMO].)

Population pharmacokinetic model.

All pharmacokinetic calculations were performed using the MW/Pharm software package (version 3.82; Mediware, Zuidhorn, The Netherlands). On the basis of the findings presented in previous reports and the findings of recent pharmacokinetic studies of ertapenem (10,17, 23,25), concentration-time curves were evaluated in one-compartment and two-compartment models. The final model was selected on the basis of the AIC (27). The plasma drug concentrations for the 42 healthy volunteers were used to develop a two-compartment population pharmacokinetic model using an iterative two-stage Bayesian (ITSB) procedure (the KinPop module of the MW/Pharm software package) (22). Clearance (CL) was calculated using the equation (CLm · BSA)/(1.85 + fr · CLCR), where CLm is metabolic clearance (in liters per hour per 1.85 m2), BSA is the body surface area (in square meters), fr is the drug clearance/creatinine clearance ratio, and CLCR is creatinine clearance (in liters per hour) (23). Pharmacokinetic parameters were assumed to be log normally distributed, and the residual error was assumed to be normally distributed. The standard deviation (SD) was equal to 0.1 + (0.1 · C), where C is the observed plasma ertapenem concentration. The nonparametric 95% confidence intervals of the population parameters and their interindividual standard deviations were estimated by bootstrap analysis (n = 1,000). The area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h used as a reference value (AUC0–24, ref) was calculated using the log trapezoidal rule (in the KinFit module of the MW/Pharm software package).

Internal validation was performed by leaving the data for three healthy volunteers, obtained by randomization using Microsoft Excel 2010 software, out of pharmacokinetic model development, creating 14 n − 3 submodels (14 submodels without the data for three healthy volunteers). The AUC0–24 estimated from these data (AUC0–24, n − 3) was obtained by Bayesian fitting using the data for the three volunteers left out of the corresponding n − 3 submodels. The agreement between AUC0–24, n − 3 and AUC0–24, ref was assessed by use of Bland-Altman analysis, Passing and Bablok regression, and a subsequent residual plot. External validation was performed by Bayesian fitting of the model developed with the data for the volunteers to the data for individual MDR-TB patients (AUC0–24, fit), using the population model developed with data from the volunteers as a prior. For comparison of the pharmacokinetics between MDR-TB patients and volunteers, a similar analysis was performed with the data for the 18 volunteers who received 1 g of ertapenem. Bland-Altman analysis was also used to assess the agreement between AUC0–24, fit and AUC0–24, ref for the MDR-TB patients.

Limited sampling strategies.

A Monte Carlo simulation was used to calculate the values of AUC0–24 estimated by the limited sampling strategies (AUC0–24, LSS values), as implemented in the MW/Pharm software package. This stochastic simulation consisted of data for 1,000 random patients drawn from the population pharmacokinetic model. For each patient, limited sampling strategies were calculated by the use of 1 to 3 sampling time points and a Bayesian maximum a posteriori procedure. We evaluated limited sampling strategies on the basis of separate calculations with time restrictions of 0 to 6 h, 0 to 12 h, and 0 to 24 h. Performance was considered suitable for application in prospective studies if the adjusted r squared (r2) value was >0.95, the root mean square error (RMSE) value was <15%, and the mean prediction error (MPE) was <5%. The prediction errors were calculated as [(AUC0–24, LSS − AUC0–24, ref)/AUC0–24, ref] · 100.

Prediction of f 40% TMIC.

The ertapenem concentration-time curve for each patient was used to establish whether the f 40% TMIC was reached. For this purpose, the time that the concentration in the concentration-time curve was above the MIC was assessed by use of the MW/Pharm software package. The percentage of ertapenem unbound to protein used for the assessment was 5 (3, 4). The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) MIC value for ertapenem (non-species related) of 0.5 mg · liter−1 was used to calculate f 40% TMIC (3, 6). Exposure was considered adequate if the concentration was above the MIC 40% of the time. This value corresponds to 9.6 h in each 24-h interval, as shown in Fig. 5.

FIG 5
Ertapenem plasma concentration-time curve. Forty percent of the time corresponds to 9.6 h (indicated by the heavy line) in each 24-h interval.

Statistics.

Differences between the population characteristics and pharmacokinetic parameters of healthy volunteers and TB patients were calculated using the Mann-Whitney U test. All statistics were calculated with Analyze-it for Microsoft Excel software (version 2.30).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Merck & Co., Inc., USA for providing data from earlier pharmacokinetic studies of ertapenem.

We have no conflict of interest to declare.

REFERENCES

1. Mouton JW, Touzw DJ, Horrevorts AM, Vinks AA 2000. Comparative pharmacokinetics of the carbapenems: clinical implications. Clin Pharmacokinet 39:185–201. doi:.10.2165/00003088-200039030-00002 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
2. Craig WA. 1998. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic parameters: rationale for antibacterial dosing of mice and men. Clin Infect Dis 26:1–10. doi:.10.1086/516284 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
3. Veziris N, Truffot C, Mainardi JL, Jarlier V 2011. Activity of carbapenems combined with clavulanate against murine tuberculosis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 55:2597–2600. doi:.10.1128/AAC.01824-10 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
4. Cordillot M, Dubee V, Triboulet S, Dubost L, Marie A, Hugonnet JE, Arthur M, Mainardi JL 2013. In vitro cross-linking of Mycobacterium tuberculosis peptidoglycan by l,d-transpeptidases and inactivation of these enzymes by carbapenems. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 57:5940–5945. doi:.10.1128/AAC.01663-13 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
5. Diacon AH, van der Merwe L, Barnard M, von Groote-Bidlingmaier F, Lange C, García-Basteiro AL, Sevene E, Ballell L, Barros-Aguirre D 2016. β-Lactams against tuberculosis—new trick for an old dog? N Engl J Med 375:393–394. doi:.10.1056/NEJMc1513236 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
6. Srivastava S, van Rijn SP, Wessels AM, Alffenaar JW, Gumbo T 2016. Susceptibility testing of antibiotics that degrade faster than the doubling time of slow-growing mycobacteria: ertapenem sterilizing effect versus Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 60:3193–3195. doi:.10.1128/AAC.02924-15 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
7. van Rijn SP, van Altena R, Akkerman OW, van Soolingen D, van der Laan T, de Lange WC, Kostering JG, van der Werf TS, Alffenaar JW 2016. Pharmacokinetics of ertapenem in patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. Eur Respir J 47:1229–1234. doi:.10.1183/13993003.01654-2015 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
8. Tiberi S, D'Ambrosio L, De Lorenzo S, Viggiani P, Centis R, Sothiu G, Alfenaar JW, Migliori GB 2016. Ertapenem in the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: first clinical experience. Eur Respir J 47:333–336. doi:.10.1183/13993003.01278-2015 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
9. Majumdar AK, Musson DG, Birk KL, Kitchen CJ, Holland S, McCrea J, Mistry G, Hesney M, Xi L, Li SX, Haesen R, Blum RA, Lins RL, Greenberg H, Waldman S, Deutsch P, Rogers JD 2002. Pharmacokinetics of ertapenem in healthy young volunteers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 46:3506–3511. doi:.10.1128/AAC.46.11.3506-3511.2002 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
10. Borracci T, Adembri C, Accetta G, Berti J, Cappellini I, Lucchese M, Biggeri A, De Gaudio AR, Novelli A 2014. Use of the parenteral antibiotic ertapenem as short term prophylaxis in bariatric surgery: a pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic study in class III obese female patients. Minerva Anestesiol 80:1005–1011. [PubMed]
11. Chen M, Nafziger AN, Drusano GL, Ma L, Bertino JS Jr 2006. Comparative pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamic target attainment of ertapenem in normal-weight, obese, and extremely obese adults. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 50:1222–1227. doi:.10.1128/AAC.50.4.1222-1227.2006 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
12. Eyler RF, Vilay AM, Nader AM, Heung M, Pleva M, Sowinski KM, DePestel DD, Sorgel F, Kinzig M, Mueller BA 2014. Pharmacokinetics of ertapenem in critically ill patients receiving continuous venovenous hemodialysis or hemodiafiltration. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 58:1320–1326. doi:.10.1128/AAC.02090-12 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
13. Mistry GC, Majumdar AK, Swan S, Sica D, Fisher A, Xu Y, Hesney M, Xi L, Wagner JA, Deutsch PJ 2006. Pharmacokinetics of ertapenem in patients with varying degrees of renal insufficiency and in patients on hemodialysis. J Clin Pharmacol 46:1128–1138. doi:.10.1177/0091270006291839 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
14. Burkhardt O, Hafer C, Langhoff A, Kaever V, Kumar V, Welte T, Haller H, Fliser D, Kielsteijn JT 2009. Pharmacokinetics of ertapenem in critically ill patients with acute renal failure undergoing extended daily dialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 24:267–271. doi:.10.1093/ndt/gfn472 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
15. Brink AJ, Richards GA, Schillack V, Kiem S, Schentag J 2009. Pharmacokinetics of once-daily dosing of ertapenem in critically ill patients with severe sepsis. Int J Antimicrob Agents 33:432–436. doi:.10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2008.10.005 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
16. Burkhardt O, Kumar V, Katterwe D, Majcher-Peszynska J, Drewelow B, Derendorf H, Welte T 2007. Ertapenem in critically ill patients with early-onset ventilator-associated pneumonia: pharmacokinetics with special consideration of free-drug concentration. J Antimicrob Chemother 59:277–284. [PubMed]
17. Cardone KE, Grabe DW, Kulawy RW, Daoui R, Roglieri J, Meola S, Drusano GL, Lodise TP 2012. Ertapenem pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics during continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 56:725–730. doi:.10.1128/AAC.05515-11 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
18. Alffenaar JW, Kosterink JG, van Altena R, van der Werf TS, Uges DR, Proost JH 2010. Limited sampling strategies for therapeutic drug monitoring of linezolid in patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. Ther Drug Monit 32:97–101. doi:.10.1097/FTD.0b013e3181cc6d6f [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
19. Pranger AD, Kosterink JG, van Altena R, Aarnoutse RE, van der Werf TS, Uges DR, Alffenaar JW 2011. Limited-sampling strategies for therapeutic drug monitoring of moxifloxacin in patients with tuberculosis. Ther Drug Monit 33:350–354. doi:.10.1097/FTD.0b013e31821b793c [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
20. Magis-Escurra C, Alffenaar JW, Hoefnagels I, Dekhuijzen PN, Boeree MR, van Ingen J, Aarnoutse RE 2013. Pharmacokinetic studies in patients with nontuberculous mycobacterial lung infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents 42:256–261. doi:.10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2013.05.007 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
21. Mould DR, Upton RN 2013. Basic concepts in population modeling, simulation, and model-based drug development. Part 2. Introduction to pharmacokinetic modeling methods CPT. Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol 2:e38. doi:.10.1038/psp.2013.14 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
22. Proost JH, Eleveld DJ 2006. Performance of an iterative two-stage Bayesian technique for population pharmacokinetic analysis of rich data-sets. Pharm Res 23:2748–2759. doi:.10.1007/s11095-006-9116-0 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
23. Dailly E, Arnould JF, Fraissinet F, Naux E, Letard de la Bouraliere MA, Bouquie R, Deslandes G, Jolliet P, Le Floch R 2013. Pharmacokinetics of ertapenem in burns patients. Int J Antimicrob Agents 42:48–52. doi:.10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2013.02.021 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
24. Liebchen U, Kratzer A, Wicha SG, Kees F, Kloft C, Kees MG 2014. Unbound fraction of ertapenem in intensive care unit patients. J Antimicrob Chemother 69:3108–3111. doi:.10.1093/jac/dku226 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
25. Lewis SJ, Kays MB, Mueller BA 2016. Use of Monte Carlo simulations to determine optimal carbapenem dosing in critically ill patients receiving prolonged intermittent renal replacement therapy. J Clin Pharmacol 26:1277–1287. doi:.10.1002/jcph.727 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
26. van Rijn SP, Wessels AM, Greijdanus B, Touw DJ, Alffenaar JW 2014. Quantification and validation of ertapenem using a liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 58:3481–3484. doi:.10.1128/AAC.00025-14 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
27. Sheiner LB, Beal SL 1981. some suggestions for measuring predictive performance. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 9:503–512. doi:.10.1007/BF01060893 [PubMed] [Cross Ref]

Articles from Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)