Why the study?
Real-world DOAC use shows substantial interindividual concentration variations, risking adverse events, and PBPK models may help tailor dosing in vulnerable hospitalized patients.
Does PBPK modeling accurately predict apixaban and rivaroxaban plasma concentrations in elderly, polymorbid hospitalized patients?
Does PBPK modeling accurately predict apixaban and rivaroxaban plasma concentrations in elderly, polymorbid hospitalized patients?
PBPK models can accurately predict apixaban and rivaroxaban exposure in vulnerable hospitalized patients, supporting their potential bedside use for tailored dosing.
PBPK models predict concentrations in hospitalized elderly patients; leaves open prospective validation before tailored dosing.
When used in real‐world conditions, substantial interindividual variations in direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) plasma concentrations are observed for a given dose, leading to a risk of over‐ or under‐exposure and clinically significant adverse events. Physiologically‐based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models could help physicians to tailor DOAC prescriptions in vulnerable patient populations, such as those in the hospital setting. The present study aims to validate prospectively PBPK models for rivaroxaban and apixaban in a large cohort of elderly, polymorbid, and hospitalized patients. In using a model of geriatric population integrating appropriate physiological parameters into models first optimized with healthy volunteer data, observed plasma concentration collected in hospitalized patients on apixaban ( n = 100) and rivaroxaban ( n = 100) were adequately predicted (ratio predicted/observed area under the concentration curve for a dosing interval [AUC tau ] = 0.97 [0.96–0.99] geometric mean, 90% confidence interval, ratio predicted/observed AUC tau = 1.03 [1.02–1.05]) for apixaban and rivaroxaban, respectively. Validation of the present PBPK models for rivaroxaban and apixaban in in‐patients represent an additional step toward the feasibility of bedside use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Terrier et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: