4.7 Article

In Silico Children and the Glass Mouse Model: Clinical Trial Simulations To Identify and Individualize Optimal Isoniazid Doses in Children with Tuberculosis

期刊

ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 55, 期 2, 页码 539-545

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00763-10

关键词

-

资金

  1. Howard Hughes Medical Institute Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Children with tuberculosis present with high rates of disseminated disease and tuberculous (TB) meningitis due to poor cell-mediated immunity. Recommended isoniazid doses vary from 5 mg/kg/day to 15 mg/kg/day. Antimicrobial pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies have demonstrated that the ratio of the 0- to 24-h area under the concentration-time curve (AUC(0-24)) to the MIC best explains isoniazid microbial kill. The AUC(0-24)/MIC ratio associated with 80% of maximal kill (80% effective concentration [EC80]), considered the optimal effect, is 287.2. Given the pharmacokinetics of isoniazid encountered in children 10 years old or younger, with infants as a special group, and given the differences in penetration of isoniazid into phagocytic cells, epithelial lining fluid, and subarachnoid space during TB meningitis, we performed 10,000 patient Monte Carlo simulations to determine how well isoniazid doses of between 2.5 and 40 mg/kg/day would achieve or exceed the EC80. None of the doses examined achieved the EC80 in >= 90% of children. Doses of 5 mg/kg were universally inferior; doses of 10 to 15 mg/kg/day were adequate only under the very limited circumstances of children who were slow acetylators and had disease limited to pneumonia. Each of the three disease syndromes, acetylation phenotype, and being an infant required different doses to achieve adequate AUC(0-24)/MIC exposures in an acceptable proportion of children. We conclude that current recommended doses for children are likely suboptimal and that isoniazid doses in children are best individualized based on disease process, age, and acetylation status.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据