Back

Nonlinear Mixed-Effects and Full Bayesian Population Pharmacokinetic Analysis of Ceftolozane-Tazobactam in Critically Ill Patients

Okunska, P.; Borys, M.; Rypulak, E.; Piwowarczyk, P.; Szczukocka, M.; Raszewski, G.; Czuczwar, M.; Wiczling, P.

2026-03-26 pharmacology and toxicology
10.64898/2026.03.24.713879 bioRxiv
Show abstract

1.Pharmacokinetic studies in critically ill patients are often constrained by small sample sizes, limiting the strength and generalizability of conclusions drawn solely from observed data. Bayesian inference offers a powerful strategy to address this challenge by incorporating prior knowledge. In this study, we evaluated two model-based approaches for characterizing the population pharmacokinetics of ceftolozane and tazobactam in critically ill patients, comparing nonlinear mixed-effects modeling with Bayesian hierarchical analyses. The Bayesian methods incorporated literature-derived prior information. The data was collected from 13 critically ill patients receiving 3.0 g of ceftolozane combined with tazobactam (2:1) via intravenous infusion. Pharmacokinetic modeling was performed using NONMEM and Stan software with the Torsten extension. Model diagnostics and graphical analyses were conducted in RStudio with relevant packages. In the absence of prior information, a one-compartment model with a limited set of parameters describing inter-individual variability adequately characterized the pharmacokinetics of ceftolozane and tazobactam. When prior information was incorporated, a two-compartment model became feasible and yielded a characterization of parameter variability and correlations that was more consistent with published literature. The application of Bayesian inference ensured alignment with existing literature on ceftolozane and tazobactam pharmacokinetics and mitigated some systematic biases observed in the data-driven approaches. Moreover, the Bayesian approach enables direct decision-making by incorporating uncertainty into the analysis, as demonstrated by probability of target attainment analysis. Collectively, these results underscore the utility of Bayesian methods in pharmacokinetic modeling for critically ill patients, offering a robust framework for optimizing dosing strategies in data-limited settings.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
167 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
19.7%
2
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.9%
3
Frontiers in Pharmacology
100 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
10.2%
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 6%
10.2%
50% of probability mass above
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 21%
8.5%
6
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 9%
3.7%
7
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
43 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
8
Clinical and Translational Science
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
9
Statistics in Medicine
34 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
10
Journal of Neuroscience Methods
106 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.7%
11
International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
12
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
13
Viruses
318 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
14
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
15
European Respiratory Journal
54 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
16
Molecular Pharmaceutics
16 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
17
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
18
Malaria Journal
48 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
19
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
378 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
20
Journal of Controlled Release
39 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.8%
21
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
45 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
22
ACS Pharmacology & Translational Science
40 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
23
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 65%
0.7%
24
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 11%
0.7%
25
Toxicological Sciences
38 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.5%
26
Pharmaceutics
21 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.5%