Clinical Validation of the Covariates Pharmacokinetic Model for Propofol in an Adult Population

Christopher Hawthorne, Martin Shaw, Ruaraidh Campbell, Nicholas Sutcliffe, Shiona McKelvie, Stefan Schraag, Christopher Hawthorne, Martin Shaw, Ruaraidh Campbell, Nicholas Sutcliffe, Shiona McKelvie, Stefan Schraag

Abstract

Background and objective: Pharmacokinetic or pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic models have been instrumental in facilitating the clinical use of propofol in target-controlled infusion systems in anaesthetic practice. There has been debate over which model should be recommended for practice. The covariates model is an updated pharmacokinetic model for propofol. The aim of this study was to prospectively validate this model in an adult population.

Methods: Twenty-nine patients were included, with a range of ages to assess model performance in younger and older individuals. Subjects received propofol through a target-controlled infusion device programmed with the covariates model. Subjects were randomised to one of two increasing/decreasing regimes of propofol plasma target concentrations between 2 and 5 μg.mL-1. After the start of the infusion, arterial and venous blood samples were drawn at pre-specified timepoints between 1.5 and 20 min and between 1.5 and 45 min, respectively. Predictive performance was assessed using established methodology.

Results: The model achieved a bias of 9 (- 45 to 82) and precision of 24 (9-82) for arterial samples and bias of - 8 (- 64 to 70) and precision of 23 (9-70) for venous samples. Predicted concentrations tended to be higher than the measured concentrations in female individuals but lower in male individuals. There was no clear systematic difference in the bias between younger and older patients.

Conclusions: The covariates propofol pharmacokinetic model achieved an acceptable level of predictive performance, as assessed by both arterial and venous sampling, for use in target-controlled infusion in clinical practice.

Clinical trial registration: NCT01492712 (15 December, 2011).

Conflict of interest statement

Injectomat TIVA Agilia with covariates model was provided by Fresenius Kabi (Brezins, France). SS received consultant honoraria from Fresenius Kabi and lecture honoraria from Aspen Pharmaceuticals. CH received consultant honoraria from Integra LifeSciences and lecture honoraria from AstraZeneca. MS, RC, NS and SM have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study algorithm. Red box represents an arterial sample taken, blue box represents a venous sample taken. BIS bispectral index, Cp target plasma concentration, GA general anaesthesia, loC level of consciousness, TCI target-controlled infusion
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Validation study results showing the median performance error (MDPE) and median absolute performance error (MDAPE) for arterial and venous samples. The horizontal black dashed line signifies an MDPE of 0, while the horizontal grey dashed lines signify MDPEs of + 20 and − 20, which represents clinically acceptable performance [16]
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Summary of results for prediction errors based on arterial blood sampling in simulation studies for each of the covariates, Marsh et al., Schnider et al. and Eleveld et al. models in all patients (A), female patients (B) and male patients (C). The horizontal black dashed line signifies a median performance error (MDPE) of 0, while the horizontal grey dashed lines signify MDPEs of + 20 and − 20, which represents clinically acceptable performance [16]
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Summary of results for prediction errors based on venous blood sampling in simulation studies for each of the covariates, Marsh et al., Schnider et al. and Eleveld et al. models in all patients (A), female patients (B) and male patients (C). The horizontal black dashed line signifies a median performance error (MDPE) of 0, while the horizontal grey dashed lines signify MDPEs of + 20 and − 20, which represents clinically acceptable performance [16]
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Summary of results for prediction errors based on arterial (A) and venous (B) blood sampling in simulation studies for each of the covariates (“C”), Marsh et al. (“M”), Schnider et al. (“S) and Eleveld et al. (“E”) models at set timepoints following an increase in target plasma concentrations. The horizontal black dashed line signifies a median performance error of 0, while the horizontal grey dashed lines signify MDPEs of + 20 and − 20, which represents clinically acceptable performance [16]. mins minutes

References

    1. Pandit JJ, Andrade J, Bogod DG, et al. 5th National Audit Project (NAP5) on accidental awareness during general anaesthesia: summary of main findings and risk factors. Br J Anaesth. 2014;113:549–559. doi: 10.1093/bja/aeu313.
    1. Absalom AR, Glen JB, Zwart GJC, Schnider TW, Struys MMRF. Target-controlled infusion. Anesth Analg. 2016;122:70–78. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000001009.
    1. Marsh B, White M, Morton N, Kenny GNC. Pharmacokinetic model driven infusion of propofol in children. Br J Anaesth. 1991;67:41–48. doi: 10.1093/bja/67.1.41.
    1. Schnider TW, Minto CF, Gambus PL, et al. The Influence of method of administration and covariates on the pharmacokinetics of propofol in adult volunteers. Anesthesiology. 1998;1(88):1172–1180.
    1. Schnider TW, Minto CF, Shafer SL, et al. The influence of age on propofol pharmacodynamics. Anesthesiology. 1999;1(90):1502–1516. doi: 10.1097/00000542-199906000-00003.
    1. Absalom AR, Mani V, De Smet T, Struys MMRF. Pharmacokinetic models for propofol: defining and illuminating the devil in the detail. Br J Anaesth. 2009;103:26–37. doi: 10.1093/bja/aeq021.
    1. Eleveld DJ, Colin P, Absalom AR, Struys MMRF. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model for propofol for broad application in anaesthesia and sedation. Br J Anaesth. 2018;20:942–959. doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2018.01.018.
    1. White M, Kenny GNC, Schraag S. Use of target controlled infusion to derive age and gender covariates for propofol clearance. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2008;47:119–127. doi: 10.2165/00003088-200847020-00005.
    1. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191–2194. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.281053.
    1. Absalom A, Amutike D, Lal A, White M, Kenny GNC. Accuracy of the ‘Paedfusor’ in children undergoing cardiac surgery or catheterization. Br J Anaesth. 2003;91:507–513. doi: 10.1093/bja/aeg220.
    1. Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland Recommendations for standards of monitoring during anaesthesia and recovery 2015. Anaesthesia. 2016;71:85–93. doi: 10.1111/anae.13316.
    1. Rigby-Jones AE, Priston MJ, Wolf AR, Sneyd JR. Concentration-dependent instability of propofol in whole human blood: a-464. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2005;22:122. doi: 10.1097/00003643-200505001-00436.
    1. R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 2108. . Accessed 2 Sep 2022.
    1. Varvel JR, Donoho DL, Shafer SL. Measuring the predictive performance of computer-controlled infusion pumps. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1992;1(20):63–94. doi: 10.1007/BF01143186.
    1. Soetaert K, Petzoldt T, Setzer RW. Solving differential equations in R: Package deSolve. J Stat Softw. 2010;33(9):1–25.
    1. Schüttler J, Kloos S, Schwilden H, Stoeckel H. Total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol and alfentanil by computer-assisted infusion. Anaesthesia. 1988;43 (Suppl 1):2–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1988.tb09059.x.
    1. Chiou WL. The phenomenon and rationale of marked dependence of drug concentration on blood sampling site. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1989;17:175–199. doi: 10.2165/00003088-198917030-00004.
    1. Coetzee JF, Glen JB, Wium CA, Boshoff L. Pharmacokinetic model selection for target controlled infusions of propofol: assessment of three parameter sets. Anesthesiology. 1995;1(82):1328–1345. doi: 10.1097/00000542-199506000-00003.
    1. Glen JB, Servin F. Evaluation of the predictive performance of four pharmacokinetic models for propofol. Br J Anaesth. 2009;102:626–632. doi: 10.1093/bja/aep043.
    1. Glen JB, White M. A comparison of the predictive performance of three pharmacokinetic models for propofol using measured values obtained during target-controlled infusion. Anaesthesia. 2014;69:550–557. doi: 10.1111/anae.12631.
    1. Vellinga R, Hannivoort LN, Introna M, et al. Prospective clinical validation of the Eleveld propofol pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model in general anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 2021;126:386–394. doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2020.10.027.
    1. Hüppe T, Maurer F, Sessler DI, Volk T, Kreuer S. Retrospective comparison of Eleveld, Marsh, and Schnider propofol pharmacokinetic models in 50 patients. Br J Anaesth. 2020;124:E22–E24. doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2019.10.019.
    1. Dumont GA, Ansermino JM. Closed-loop control of anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 2013;117:1130–1138. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3182973687.
    1. Lee H-C, Ryu H-G, Chung E-J, Jung C-W. Prediction of bispectral index during target-controlled infusion of propofol and remifentanil. Anesthesiology. 2018;1(128):492–501. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000001892.
    1. Hawthorne C, Schraag S, Suttcliffe N, McKelvie S, Shaw M, Chandran M. Abstract PR438: validation study of the covariates model for target controlled infusion of propofol. Anesth Analg. 2016;123(3S):554–555. doi: 10.1213/01.ane.0000492826.35252.ce.
    1. Hawthorne C, Chandra M, McKelvie S, Sutcliffe N, Schraag S. Methods and interim results of a validation study of the covariates model for target-controlled infusion of propofol. Br J Anaesth. 2012;109(4):658P–P659.
    1. Hawthorne C. Physiological and pharmacological modelling in neurological intensive care and anaesthesia. MD thesis, University of Glasgow, Glasgow. 2017.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonneren