Benchmarking therapeutic drug monitoring software: A review of available computer tools

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) aims to optimize treatments by individualizing dosage regimens based on the measurement of blood concentrations. Dosage individualization to maintain concentrations within a target range requires pharmacokinetic and clinical capabilities. Bayesian calculations currently represent the gold standard TDM approach but require computation assistance. In recent decades computer programs have been developed to assist clinicians in this assignment. The aim of this survey was to assess and compare computer tools designed to support TDM clinical activities. The literature and the Internet were searched to identify software. All programs were tested on personal computers. Each program was scored against a standardized grid covering pharmacokinetic relevance, user friendliness, computing aspects, interfacing and storage. A weighting factor was applied to each criterion of the grid to account for its relative importance. To assess the robustness of the software, six representative clinical vignettes were processed through each of them. Altogether, 12 software tools were identified, tested and ranked, representing a comprehensive review of the available software. Numbers of drugs handled by the software vary widely (from two to 180), and eight programs offer users the possibility of adding new drug models based on population pharmacokinetic analyses. Bayesian computation to predict dosage adaptation from blood concentration (a posteriori adjustment) is performed by ten tools, while nine are also able to propose a priori dosage regimens, based only on individual patient covariates such as age, sex and bodyweight. Among those applying Bayesian calculation, MM-USC*PACK© uses the non-parametric approach. The top two programs emerging from this benchmark were MwPharm© and TCIWorks. Most other programs evaluated had good potential while being less sophisticated or less user friendly. Programs vary in complexity and might not fit all healthcare settings. Each software tool must therefore be regarded with respect to the individual needs of hospitals or clinicians. Programs should be easy and fast for routine activities, including for non-experienced users. Computer-assisted TDM is gaining growing interest and should further improve, especially in terms of information system interfacing, user friendliness, data storage capability and report generation.

Mapping Bias Overestimates Reference Allele Frequencies at the HLA Genes in the 1000 Genomes Project Phase I Data.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies have become the standard for data generation in studies of population genomics, as the 1000 Genomes Project (1000G). However, these techniques are known to be problematic when applied to highly polymorphic genomic regions, such as the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genes. Because accurate genotype calls and allele frequency estimations are crucial to population genomics analyses, it is important to assess the reliability of NGS data. Here, we evaluate the reliability of genotype calls and allele frequency estimates of the single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) reported by 1000G (phase I) at five HLA genes (HLA-A, -B, -C, -DRB1, and -DQB1). We take advantage of the availability of HLA Sanger sequencing of 930 of the 1092 1000G samples and use this as a gold standard to benchmark the 1000G data. We document that 18.6% of SNP genotype calls in HLA genes are incorrect and that allele frequencies are estimated with an error greater than ±0.1 at approximately 25% of the SNPs in HLA genes. We found a bias toward overestimation of reference allele frequency for the 1000G data, indicating mapping bias is an important cause of error in frequency estimation in this dataset. We provide a list of sites that have poor allele frequency estimates and discuss the outcomes of including those sites in different kinds of analyses. Because the HLA region is the most polymorphic in the human genome, our results provide insights into the challenges of using of NGS data at other genomic regions of high diversity.