4.7 Article

External Evaluation of a Gentamicin Infant Population Pharmacokinetic Model Using Data from a National Electronic Health Record Database

Journal

ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY
Volume 62, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00669-18

Keywords

EHR; external evaluation; gentamicin; infant; pharmacokinetics; pediatrics

Funding

  1. National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) [T32GM086330]
  2. National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) [K23HD090239]
  3. U.S. government [HHSN267200700051C]
  4. Eli Lilly and Company
  5. Purdue Pharma L.P.
  6. NICHD [HHSN275201000003I, K23HD091398]
  7. Duke Clinical and Translational Science Awards [KL2TR001115]
  8. NIH [1R01-HD076676-01A1]
  9. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the NIH [UL1TR001117]
  10. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) [HHSN272201500006I, HHSN272201300017I]
  11. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [1U01FD004858-01]
  12. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority [HHSO100201300009C]
  13. Thrasher Research Fund
  14. CardioDx
  15. Durata Therapeutics
  16. FDA [R01FD005101]
  17. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) [1R34HL124038]
  18. NICHD Pediatric Trials Network [HHSN267200700051C]
  19. MRC [MR/M008665/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Gentamicin is a common antibiotic used in neonates and infants. A recently published population pharmacokinetic (PK) model was developed using data from multiple studies, and the objective of our analyses was to evaluate the feasibility of using a national electronic health record (EHR) database for further external evaluation of this model. Our results suggest that, with proper data capture procedures, EHR data can serve as a potential data source for external evaluation of PK models.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available