Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Clinical Pharmacokinetics 4/2017

01-04-2017 | Original Research Article

A Nonparametric Method to Optimize Initial Drug Dosing and Attainment of a Target Exposure Interval: Concepts and Application to Busulfan in Pediatrics

Authors: Michaël Philippe, Michael Neely, Yves Bertrand, Nathalie Bleyzac, Sylvain Goutelle

Published in: Clinical Pharmacokinetics | Issue 4/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

The traditional approach for model-based initial dosing is based on the use of a single vector of typical population parameters for targeting a specific exposure. This approach is theoretically ill-suited for targeting a range of exposure. The objective of this work was to develop a general approach for optimal (OPT) targeting of a drug exposure interval. After methodological purposes, we applied our method to the busulfan case. We used a nonparametric population pharmacokinetic model of intravenous busulfan to estimate the individual pharmacokinetic parameters of 163 bone marrow-transplanted children. Then, an array of 151 doses of busulfan ranging from 0.5 to 2 mg/kg was simulated a priori in each patient. For each dose, 29 possible busulfan plasma concentration profiles, corresponding to the nonparametric prior, each associated with a probability, were obtained. The multiple-model-based, OPT dose was identified as the dose maximizing the a priori probability of achieving the busulfan target area under the concentration-time curve (AUC). Two AUC targets were considered: 900–1500 (conventional) or <1500 µM min−1. Finally, the OPT dose was individually simulated in each patient. We compared the ability of this method to achieve the target exposure interval with that of three other traditional model-based methods and one based on the non-parametric approach. When targeting the busulfan conventional AUC range, the OPT dose provided better attainment than the best of the three other methods after one dose (82.2 vs. 41.7 %, p < 0.005), two doses (79.1 vs. 65.0 %, p < 0.005), and at the end of therapy (80.4 vs. 76.7 %, p < 0.42). The approach provided a balanced distribution between under- (10.4 %) and overexposure (9.2 %), while other approaches showed higher rates of underexposure (≥19 %). When targeting an AUC <1500 µM min, the OPT dose was successful in minimizing overexposure as 0 % of children showed simulated AUC >1500 µM min−1. Our approach has been designed to optimize the targeting of an exposure interval. When applied to busulfan in children, it outperformed the traditional model-based dosing approach, with earlier and better achievement of busulfan target AUC. The approach can be applied for OPT dosing of many drugs, when the target objective is an interval.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Burton ME, Shaw LM, Schentag JJ, Evans WE. Applied pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics: principles of therapeutic drug monitoring. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006. p. 257–812. Burton ME, Shaw LM, Schentag JJ, Evans WE. Applied pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics: principles of therapeutic drug monitoring. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006. p. 257–812.
2.
go back to reference Jelliffe RW, Schumitzky A, Bayard D, et al. Model-based, goal-oriented, individualised drug therapy: linkage of population modelling, new “multiple model” dosage design, Bayesian feedback and individualised target goals. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1998;34:57–77.CrossRefPubMed Jelliffe RW, Schumitzky A, Bayard D, et al. Model-based, goal-oriented, individualised drug therapy: linkage of population modelling, new “multiple model” dosage design, Bayesian feedback and individualised target goals. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1998;34:57–77.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Tod MM, Padoin C, Petitjean O. Individualising aminoglycoside dosage regimens after therapeutic drug monitoring: simple or complex pharmacokinetic methods? Clin Pharmacokinet. 2001;40:803–14.CrossRefPubMed Tod MM, Padoin C, Petitjean O. Individualising aminoglycoside dosage regimens after therapeutic drug monitoring: simple or complex pharmacokinetic methods? Clin Pharmacokinet. 2001;40:803–14.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Jelliffe R, Bayard D, Milman M, et al. Achieving target goals most precisely using nonparametric compartmental models and “multiple model” design of dosage regimens. Ther Drug Monit. 2000;22:346–53.CrossRefPubMed Jelliffe R, Bayard D, Milman M, et al. Achieving target goals most precisely using nonparametric compartmental models and “multiple model” design of dosage regimens. Ther Drug Monit. 2000;22:346–53.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Katz D, D’Argenio DZ. Discrete approximation of multivariate densities with application to Bayesian estimation. Comput Stat Data Anal. 1984;2:27–36.CrossRef Katz D, D’Argenio DZ. Discrete approximation of multivariate densities with application to Bayesian estimation. Comput Stat Data Anal. 1984;2:27–36.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Katz D, D’Argenio DZ. Implementation and evaluation of control strategies for individualizing dosage regimens, with application to the aminoglycoside antibiotics. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1986;14:523–37.CrossRefPubMed Katz D, D’Argenio DZ. Implementation and evaluation of control strategies for individualizing dosage regimens, with application to the aminoglycoside antibiotics. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1986;14:523–37.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Sheiner LB, Beal S, Rosenberg B, Marathe VV. Forecasting individual pharmacokinetics. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1979;26:294–305.CrossRefPubMed Sheiner LB, Beal S, Rosenberg B, Marathe VV. Forecasting individual pharmacokinetics. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1979;26:294–305.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Rousseau A, Marquet P, Debord J, et al. Adaptive control methods for the dose individualisation of anticancer agents. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2000;38:315–53.CrossRefPubMed Rousseau A, Marquet P, Debord J, et al. Adaptive control methods for the dose individualisation of anticancer agents. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2000;38:315–53.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference van Lent-Evers NA, Mathôt RA, Geus WP, et al. Impact of goal-oriented and model-based clinical pharmacokinetic dosing of aminoglycosides on clinical outcome: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ther Drug Monit. 1999;21:63–73.CrossRefPubMed van Lent-Evers NA, Mathôt RA, Geus WP, et al. Impact of goal-oriented and model-based clinical pharmacokinetic dosing of aminoglycosides on clinical outcome: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ther Drug Monit. 1999;21:63–73.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Le Meur Y, Büchler M, Thierry A, et al. Individualized mycophenolate mofetil dosing based on drug exposure significantly improves patient outcomes after renal transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2007;7:2496–503.CrossRefPubMed Le Meur Y, Büchler M, Thierry A, et al. Individualized mycophenolate mofetil dosing based on drug exposure significantly improves patient outcomes after renal transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2007;7:2496–503.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Evans WE, Relling MV, Rodman JH, et al. Conventional compared with individualized chemotherapy for childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:499–505.CrossRefPubMed Evans WE, Relling MV, Rodman JH, et al. Conventional compared with individualized chemotherapy for childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:499–505.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference McCune JS, Bemer MJ, Barrett JS, et al. Busulfan in infant to adult hematopoietic cell transplant recipients: a population pharmacokinetic model for initial and Bayesian dose personalization. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20:754–63.CrossRefPubMed McCune JS, Bemer MJ, Barrett JS, et al. Busulfan in infant to adult hematopoietic cell transplant recipients: a population pharmacokinetic model for initial and Bayesian dose personalization. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20:754–63.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Paci A, Vassal G, Moshous D, et al. Pharmacokinetic behavior and appraisal of intravenous busulfan dosing in infants and older children: the results of a population pharmacokinetic study from a large pediatric cohort undergoing hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. Ther Drug Monit. 2012;34:198–208.CrossRefPubMed Paci A, Vassal G, Moshous D, et al. Pharmacokinetic behavior and appraisal of intravenous busulfan dosing in infants and older children: the results of a population pharmacokinetic study from a large pediatric cohort undergoing hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. Ther Drug Monit. 2012;34:198–208.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Nguyen L, Fuller D, Lennon S, et al. I.V. busulfan in pediatrics: a novel dosing to improve safety/efficacy for hematopoietic progenitor cell transplantation recipients. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2004;33:979–87.CrossRefPubMed Nguyen L, Fuller D, Lennon S, et al. I.V. busulfan in pediatrics: a novel dosing to improve safety/efficacy for hematopoietic progenitor cell transplantation recipients. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2004;33:979–87.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Long-Boyle JR, Savic R, Yan S, et al. Population pharmacokinetics of busulfan in pediatric and young adult patients undergoing hematopoietic cell transplant: a model-based dosing algorithm for personalized therapy and implementation into routine clinical use. Ther Drug Monit. 2015;37:236–45.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Long-Boyle JR, Savic R, Yan S, et al. Population pharmacokinetics of busulfan in pediatric and young adult patients undergoing hematopoietic cell transplant: a model-based dosing algorithm for personalized therapy and implementation into routine clinical use. Ther Drug Monit. 2015;37:236–45.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
go back to reference Zao JH, Schechter T, Liu WJ, et al. Performance of busulfan dosing guidelines for pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplant conditioning. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2015;21:1471–8.CrossRefPubMed Zao JH, Schechter T, Liu WJ, et al. Performance of busulfan dosing guidelines for pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplant conditioning. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2015;21:1471–8.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference D’Argenio DZ, Rodman JH. Targeting the systemic exposure of teniposide in the population and the individual using a stochastic therapeutic objective. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1993;21:223–51.CrossRefPubMed D’Argenio DZ, Rodman JH. Targeting the systemic exposure of teniposide in the population and the individual using a stochastic therapeutic objective. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1993;21:223–51.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Lindsay BG. The geometry of mixture likelihoods: a general theory. Ann Stat. 1983;11:86–94.CrossRef Lindsay BG. The geometry of mixture likelihoods: a general theory. Ann Stat. 1983;11:86–94.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Mallet A. A maximum likelihood estimation method for random coefficient regression models. Biometrika. 1986;73:645–56.CrossRef Mallet A. A maximum likelihood estimation method for random coefficient regression models. Biometrika. 1986;73:645–56.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Jelliffe R, Schumitzky A, Van Guilder M. Population pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics modeling: parametric and nonparametric methods. Ther Drug Monit. 2000;22:354–65.CrossRefPubMed Jelliffe R, Schumitzky A, Van Guilder M. Population pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics modeling: parametric and nonparametric methods. Ther Drug Monit. 2000;22:354–65.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Tod M, Alet P, Lortholary O, Petitjean O. Implementation and evaluation of a stochastic control strategy for individualizing teicoplanin dosage regimen. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1997;25:695–712.CrossRefPubMed Tod M, Alet P, Lortholary O, Petitjean O. Implementation and evaluation of a stochastic control strategy for individualizing teicoplanin dosage regimen. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1997;25:695–712.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Schumitzky A. Nonparametric EM algorithms for estimating prior distributions. Appl Math Comput. 1991;45:143–57. Schumitzky A. Nonparametric EM algorithms for estimating prior distributions. Appl Math Comput. 1991;45:143–57.
26.
go back to reference Slattery JT, Sanders JE, Buckner CD, et al. Graft-rejection and toxicity following bone marrow transplantation in relation to busulfan pharmacokinetics. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1995;16:31–42.PubMed Slattery JT, Sanders JE, Buckner CD, et al. Graft-rejection and toxicity following bone marrow transplantation in relation to busulfan pharmacokinetics. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1995;16:31–42.PubMed
27.
go back to reference Bolinger AM, Zangwill AB, Slattery JT, et al. Target dose adjustment of busulfan in pediatric patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2001;28:1013–8.CrossRefPubMed Bolinger AM, Zangwill AB, Slattery JT, et al. Target dose adjustment of busulfan in pediatric patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2001;28:1013–8.CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference McCune JS, Gooley T, Gibbs JP, et al. Busulfan concentration and graft rejection in pediatric patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2002;30:167–73.CrossRefPubMed McCune JS, Gooley T, Gibbs JP, et al. Busulfan concentration and graft rejection in pediatric patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2002;30:167–73.CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Grochow LB, Jones RJ, Brundrett RB, et al. Pharmacokinetics of busulfan: correlation with veno-occlusive disease in patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1989;25:55–61.CrossRefPubMed Grochow LB, Jones RJ, Brundrett RB, et al. Pharmacokinetics of busulfan: correlation with veno-occlusive disease in patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1989;25:55–61.CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Dix SP, Wingard JR, Mullins RE, et al. Association of busulfan area under the curve with veno-occlusive disease following BMT. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1996;17:225–30.PubMed Dix SP, Wingard JR, Mullins RE, et al. Association of busulfan area under the curve with veno-occlusive disease following BMT. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1996;17:225–30.PubMed
31.
go back to reference Cremers S, Schoemaker R, Bredius R, et al. Pharmacokinetics of intravenous busulfan in children prior to stem cell transplantation. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2002;53:386–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Cremers S, Schoemaker R, Bredius R, et al. Pharmacokinetics of intravenous busulfan in children prior to stem cell transplantation. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2002;53:386–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
go back to reference Tran H, Petropoulos D, Worth L, et al. Pharmacokinetics and individualized dose adjustment of intravenous busulfan in children with advanced hematologic malignancies undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2004;10:805–12.CrossRefPubMed Tran H, Petropoulos D, Worth L, et al. Pharmacokinetics and individualized dose adjustment of intravenous busulfan in children with advanced hematologic malignancies undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2004;10:805–12.CrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference Vassal G, Michel G, Espérou H, et al. Prospective validation of a novel IV busulfan fixed dosing for paediatric patients to improve therapeutic AUC targeting without drug monitoring. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2008;61:113–23.CrossRefPubMed Vassal G, Michel G, Espérou H, et al. Prospective validation of a novel IV busulfan fixed dosing for paediatric patients to improve therapeutic AUC targeting without drug monitoring. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2008;61:113–23.CrossRefPubMed
34.
go back to reference Bleyzac N, Souillet G, Magron P, et al. Improved clinical outcome of paediatric bone marrow recipients using a test dose and Bayesian pharmacokinetic individualization of busulfan dosage regimens. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2001;28:743–51.CrossRefPubMed Bleyzac N, Souillet G, Magron P, et al. Improved clinical outcome of paediatric bone marrow recipients using a test dose and Bayesian pharmacokinetic individualization of busulfan dosage regimens. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2001;28:743–51.CrossRefPubMed
35.
go back to reference Philippe M, Goutelle S, Guitton J, et al. Should busulfan therapeutic range be narrowed in pediatrics? Experience from a large cohort of hematopoietic stem cell transplant children. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2015;51:72–8.CrossRefPubMed Philippe M, Goutelle S, Guitton J, et al. Should busulfan therapeutic range be narrowed in pediatrics? Experience from a large cohort of hematopoietic stem cell transplant children. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2015;51:72–8.CrossRefPubMed
36.
go back to reference Bartelink I, Boelens JJ, Bredius RGM, et al. Body weight-dependent pharmacokinetics of busulfan in paediatric haematopoietic stem cell transplantation patients. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2012;51:331–45.CrossRefPubMed Bartelink I, Boelens JJ, Bredius RGM, et al. Body weight-dependent pharmacokinetics of busulfan in paediatric haematopoietic stem cell transplantation patients. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2012;51:331–45.CrossRefPubMed
37.
go back to reference French Code of Public Health—Article L1121-1. French Code of Public Health—Article L1121-1.
38.
go back to reference French Code of Public Health—Article L1121-2. French Code of Public Health—Article L1121-2.
39.
go back to reference Neely M, Philippe M, Rushing T, et al. Accurately achieving target busulfan exposure in children and adolescents with very limited sampling and the BestDose software. Ther Drug Monit. 2016;38:332–42.CrossRefPubMed Neely M, Philippe M, Rushing T, et al. Accurately achieving target busulfan exposure in children and adolescents with very limited sampling and the BestDose software. Ther Drug Monit. 2016;38:332–42.CrossRefPubMed
40.
go back to reference Neely MN, van Guilder MG, Yamada WM, et al. Accurate detection of outliers and subpopulations with Pmetrics, a nonparametric and parametric pharmacometric modeling and simulation package for R. Ther Drug Monit. 2012;34:467–76.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Neely MN, van Guilder MG, Yamada WM, et al. Accurate detection of outliers and subpopulations with Pmetrics, a nonparametric and parametric pharmacometric modeling and simulation package for R. Ther Drug Monit. 2012;34:467–76.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
go back to reference Neely M, Margol A, Fu X, et al. Achieving target voriconazole concentrations more accurately in children and adolescents. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;59:3090–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Neely M, Margol A, Fu X, et al. Achieving target voriconazole concentrations more accurately in children and adolescents. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;59:3090–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
42.
go back to reference Neely M, Jelliffe R. Practical therapeutic drug management in HIV-infected patients: use of population pharmacokinetic models supplemented by individualized Bayesian dose optimization. J Clin Pharmacol. 2008;48:1081–91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Neely M, Jelliffe R. Practical therapeutic drug management in HIV-infected patients: use of population pharmacokinetic models supplemented by individualized Bayesian dose optimization. J Clin Pharmacol. 2008;48:1081–91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
43.
go back to reference Bayard DS, Milman MH, Schumitzky A. Design of dosage regimens: a multiple model stochastic control approach. Int J Biomed Comput. 1994;36:103–15.CrossRefPubMed Bayard DS, Milman MH, Schumitzky A. Design of dosage regimens: a multiple model stochastic control approach. Int J Biomed Comput. 1994;36:103–15.CrossRefPubMed
44.
go back to reference Rybak M, Lomaestro B, Rotschafer JC, et al. Therapeutic monitoring of vancomycin in adult patients: a consensus review of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2009;66:82–98.CrossRefPubMed Rybak M, Lomaestro B, Rotschafer JC, et al. Therapeutic monitoring of vancomycin in adult patients: a consensus review of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2009;66:82–98.CrossRefPubMed
45.
go back to reference Gaillot J, Steimer JL, Mallet AJ, et al. A priori lithium dosage regimen using population characteristics of pharmacokinetic parameters. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1979;7:579–628.CrossRefPubMed Gaillot J, Steimer JL, Mallet AJ, et al. A priori lithium dosage regimen using population characteristics of pharmacokinetic parameters. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1979;7:579–628.CrossRefPubMed
46.
go back to reference Gomeni R, Pineau G, Mentré F. Population kinetics and conditional assessment of the optimal dosage regimen using the P-PHARM software package. Anticancer Res. 1994;14:2321–6.PubMed Gomeni R, Pineau G, Mentré F. Population kinetics and conditional assessment of the optimal dosage regimen using the P-PHARM software package. Anticancer Res. 1994;14:2321–6.PubMed
47.
go back to reference Dalle JH, Wall D, Theoret Y, et al. Intravenous busulfan for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in infants: clinical and pharmacokinetic results. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2003;32:647–51.CrossRefPubMed Dalle JH, Wall D, Theoret Y, et al. Intravenous busulfan for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in infants: clinical and pharmacokinetic results. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2003;32:647–51.CrossRefPubMed
48.
go back to reference Malär R, Sjöö F, Rentsch K, et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring is essential for intravenous busulfan therapy in pediatric hematopoietic stem cell recipients. Pediatr Transplant. 2011;15:580–8.PubMed Malär R, Sjöö F, Rentsch K, et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring is essential for intravenous busulfan therapy in pediatric hematopoietic stem cell recipients. Pediatr Transplant. 2011;15:580–8.PubMed
49.
go back to reference Tesfaye H, Branova R, Klapkova E, et al. The importance of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) for parenteral busulfan dosing in conditioning regimen for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in children. Ann Transplant. 2014;19:214–24.CrossRefPubMed Tesfaye H, Branova R, Klapkova E, et al. The importance of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) for parenteral busulfan dosing in conditioning regimen for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in children. Ann Transplant. 2014;19:214–24.CrossRefPubMed
50.
go back to reference Buffery PJ, Allen KM, Chin PKL, et al. Thirteen years’ experience of pharmacokinetic monitoring and dosing of busulfan: can the strategy be improved? Ther Drug Monit. 2014;36:86–92.PubMed Buffery PJ, Allen KM, Chin PKL, et al. Thirteen years’ experience of pharmacokinetic monitoring and dosing of busulfan: can the strategy be improved? Ther Drug Monit. 2014;36:86–92.PubMed
51.
go back to reference Wright DFB, Duffull SB. A Bayesian dose-individualization method for warfarin. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2013;52:59–68.CrossRefPubMed Wright DFB, Duffull SB. A Bayesian dose-individualization method for warfarin. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2013;52:59–68.CrossRefPubMed
52.
go back to reference Traub SL, Johnson CE. Comparison of methods of estimating creatinine clearance in children. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1980;37:195–201.PubMed Traub SL, Johnson CE. Comparison of methods of estimating creatinine clearance in children. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1980;37:195–201.PubMed
Metadata
Title
A Nonparametric Method to Optimize Initial Drug Dosing and Attainment of a Target Exposure Interval: Concepts and Application to Busulfan in Pediatrics
Authors
Michaël Philippe
Michael Neely
Yves Bertrand
Nathalie Bleyzac
Sylvain Goutelle
Publication date
01-04-2017
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Clinical Pharmacokinetics / Issue 4/2017
Print ISSN: 0312-5963
Electronic ISSN: 1179-1926
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40262-016-0448-6

Other articles of this Issue 4/2017

Clinical Pharmacokinetics 4/2017 Go to the issue