Why the study?
Which method (I, II, or III) best predicts serum digoxin concentrations in patients, including those with CHF or concurrent quinidine use?
Which method (I, II, or III) best predicts serum digoxin concentrations in patients, including those with CHF or concurrent quinidine use?
Method III provides the most unbiased prediction of serum digoxin concentrations across various patient subpopulations, including those with CHF or concurrent quinidine use.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May guide digoxin monitoring in CHF or quinidine-treated patients; leaves open prospective outcome validation before practice change.
Three methods of determining digoxin population pharmacokinetic parameters were compared for their abilities to predict 118 measured serum digoxin concentrations (SDCs) in 49 patients. NONMEM software (version IV) was used to generate a residual and a weighted residual for each measured-concentration-predicted-concentration pair. Prediction error analysis was done by a maximum likelihood technique that accounted for several within-patient measures. Data analysis also included graphic observation of weighted residuals (WRES) and calculation of the mean WRES and median absolute prediction error. A further parallel analysis was also carried out on subpopulations with and without concurrent quinidine and congestive heart failure (CHF). Method III was without bias in all subpopulations studied and had the smallest WRES in all populations. Method I was without bias in the overall population, however, it underpredicted SDCs in patients receiving quinidine and in those with CHF. Method II underpredicted SDCs in the overall population, those receiving quinidine, and in patients without CHF. There were no between-method differences in precision as assessed by absolute prediction error.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Williams et al. (1996) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: