Michael Schomaker, Paolo Denti, Andrzej Bienczak, David Burger, Iván Díaz, Diana M Gibb, Ann Sarah Walker, Helen McIlleron
{"title":"Determining Targets for Antiretroviral Drug Concentrations: A Causal Framework Illustrated With Pediatric Efavirenz Data From the CHAPAS-3 Trial.","authors":"Michael Schomaker, Paolo Denti, Andrzej Bienczak, David Burger, Iván Díaz, Diana M Gibb, Ann Sarah Walker, Helen McIlleron","doi":"10.1002/pds.70051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Determining a therapeutic window for maintaining antiretroviral drug concentrations within an appropriate range is required for identifying effective dosing regimens. The limits of this window are typically calculated using predictive models. We propose that target concentrations should instead be calculated based on counterfactual probabilities of relevant outcomes and describe a counterfactual framework for this.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The proposed framework is applied in an analysis including longitudinal observational data from 125 HIV-positive children treated with efavirenz-based regimens within the CHAPAS-3 trial, which enrolled children < 13 years in Zambia/Uganda. A directed acyclic graph was developed to visualize the mechanisms affecting antiretroviral concentrations. Causal concentration-response curves, adjusted for measured time-varying confounding of weight and adherence, are calculated using g-computation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The estimated curves show that higher concentrations during follow-up, 12/24 h after dose, lead to lower probabilities of viral failure (> 100 c/mL) at 96 weeks of follow-up. Estimated counterfactual failure probabilities under the current target range of 1-4 mg/L range from 24% to about 2%. The curves are almost identical for slow, intermediate and extensive metabolizers and show that a mid-dose concentration level of ≥ 3.5 mg/L would be required to achieve a failure probability of < 5%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our analyses demonstrate that a causal approach may lead to different minimum concentration limits than analyses that are based on purely predictive models. Moreover, the approach highlights that indirect causes of failure, such as patients' metabolizing status, may predict patients' failure risk, but do not alter the threshold at which antiviral activity of efavirenz is severely reduced.</p>","PeriodicalId":19782,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","volume":"33 12","pages":"e70051"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11614751/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.70051","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Determining a therapeutic window for maintaining antiretroviral drug concentrations within an appropriate range is required for identifying effective dosing regimens. The limits of this window are typically calculated using predictive models. We propose that target concentrations should instead be calculated based on counterfactual probabilities of relevant outcomes and describe a counterfactual framework for this.
Methods: The proposed framework is applied in an analysis including longitudinal observational data from 125 HIV-positive children treated with efavirenz-based regimens within the CHAPAS-3 trial, which enrolled children < 13 years in Zambia/Uganda. A directed acyclic graph was developed to visualize the mechanisms affecting antiretroviral concentrations. Causal concentration-response curves, adjusted for measured time-varying confounding of weight and adherence, are calculated using g-computation.
Results: The estimated curves show that higher concentrations during follow-up, 12/24 h after dose, lead to lower probabilities of viral failure (> 100 c/mL) at 96 weeks of follow-up. Estimated counterfactual failure probabilities under the current target range of 1-4 mg/L range from 24% to about 2%. The curves are almost identical for slow, intermediate and extensive metabolizers and show that a mid-dose concentration level of ≥ 3.5 mg/L would be required to achieve a failure probability of < 5%.
Conclusions: Our analyses demonstrate that a causal approach may lead to different minimum concentration limits than analyses that are based on purely predictive models. Moreover, the approach highlights that indirect causes of failure, such as patients' metabolizing status, may predict patients' failure risk, but do not alter the threshold at which antiviral activity of efavirenz is severely reduced.
期刊介绍:
The aim of Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety is to provide an international forum for the communication and evaluation of data, methods and opinion in the discipline of pharmacoepidemiology. The Journal publishes peer-reviewed reports of original research, invited reviews and a variety of guest editorials and commentaries embracing scientific, medical, statistical, legal and economic aspects of pharmacoepidemiology and post-marketing surveillance of drug safety. Appropriate material in these categories may also be considered for publication as a Brief Report.
Particular areas of interest include:
design, analysis, results, and interpretation of studies looking at the benefit or safety of specific pharmaceuticals, biologics, or medical devices, including studies in pharmacovigilance, postmarketing surveillance, pharmacoeconomics, patient safety, molecular pharmacoepidemiology, or any other study within the broad field of pharmacoepidemiology;
comparative effectiveness research relating to pharmaceuticals, biologics, and medical devices. Comparative effectiveness research is the generation and synthesis of evidence that compares the benefits and harms of alternative methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition, as these methods are truly used in the real world;
methodologic contributions of relevance to pharmacoepidemiology, whether original contributions, reviews of existing methods, or tutorials for how to apply the methods of pharmacoepidemiology;
assessments of harm versus benefit in drug therapy;
patterns of drug utilization;
relationships between pharmacoepidemiology and the formulation and interpretation of regulatory guidelines;
evaluations of risk management plans and programmes relating to pharmaceuticals, biologics and medical devices.