Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) and model‐informed precision dosing (MIPD) have evolved as important tools to inform rational dosing of antibiotics in individual patients with infections. In particular, critically ill patients display altered, highly variable pharmacokinetics and often suffer from infections caused by less susceptible bacteria. Consequently, TDM has been used to individualize dosing in this patient group for many years. More recently, there has been increasing research on the use of MIPD software to streamline the TDM process, which can increase the flexibility and precision of dose individualization but also requires adequate model validation and re‐evaluation of existing workflows. In parallel, new minimally invasive and noninvasive technologies such as microneedle‐based sensors are being developed, which—together with MIPD software—have the potential to revolutionize how patients are dosed with antibiotics. Nonetheless, carefully designed clinical trials to evaluate the benefit of TDM and MIPD approaches are still sparse, but are critically needed to justify the implementation of TDM and MIPD in clinical practice. The present review summarizes the clinical pharmacology of antibiotics, conventional TDM and MIPD approaches, and evidence of the value of TDM/MIPD for aminoglycosides, beta‐lactams, glycopeptides, and linezolid, for which precision dosing approaches have been recommended.

Model-informed precision dosing (MIPD) stands as a significant development in personalized medicine to tailor drug dosing to individual patient characteristics. MIPD moves beyond traditional therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) by integrating mathematical predictions of dosing, and considering patient-specific factors (patient characteristics, drug measurements) as well as different sources of variability. For this purpose, rigorous model qualification is required for the application of MIPD in patients. This review delves into new methods in model selection and validation, also highlighting the role of machine learning in improving MIPD, the utilization of biosensors for real-time monitoring, as well as the potential of models integrating biomarkers for efficacy or toxicity for precision dosing. The clinical evidence of TDM and MIPD is discussed for various medical fields including infection medicine, oncology, transplant medicine, and inflammatory bowel diseases, thereby underscoring the role of pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics and specific biomarkers. Further research, particularly randomized clinical trials, is warranted to corroborate the value of MIPD in enhancing patient outcomes and advancing personalized medicine.

Assessment of pharmacodynamic (PD) drug interactions is a cornerstone of the development of combination drug therapies. To guide this venture, we derive a general pharmacodynamic interaction (GPDI) model for ≥2 interacting drugs that is compatible with common additivity criteria. We propose a PD interaction to be quantifiable as multidirectional shifts in drug efficacy or potency and explicate the drugs’ role as victim, perpetrator or even both at the same time. We evaluate the GPDI model against conventional approaches in a data set of 200 combination experiments inSaccharomyces cerevisiae: 22% interact additively, a minority of the interactions (11%) are bidirectional antagonistic or synergistic, whereas the majority (67%) are monodirectional, i.e., asymmetric with distinct perpetrators and victims, which is not classifiable by conventional methods. The GPDI model excellently reflects the observed interaction data, and hence represents an attractive approach for quantitative assessment of novel combination therapies along the drug development process.

Pharmacometrics (PM) and machine learning (ML) are both valuable for drug development to characterize pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD). Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PKPD) analysis using PM provides mechanistic insight into biological processes but is time- and labor-intensive. In contrast, ML models are much quicker trained, but offer less mechanistic insights. The opportunity of using ML predictions of drug PK as input for a PKPD model could strongly accelerate analysis efforts. Here exemplified by rifampicin, a widely used antibiotic, we explore the ability of different ML algorithms to predict drug PK. Based on simulated data, we trained linear regressions (LASSO), Gradient Boosting Machines, XGBoost and Random Forest to predict the plasma concentration-time series and rifampicin area under the concentration-versus-time curve from 0–24 h (AUC_0–24h) after repeated dosing. XGBoost performed best for prediction of the entire PK series (R²: 0.84, root mean square error (RMSE): 6.9 mg/L, mean absolute error (MAE): 4.0 mg/L) for the scenario with the largest data size. For AUC_0–24h prediction, LASSO showed the highest performance (R²: 0.97, RMSE: 29.1 h·mg/L, MAE: 18.8 h·mg/L). Increasing the number of plasma concentrations per patient (0, 2 or 6 concentrations per occasion) improved model performance. For example, for AUC_0–24h prediction using LASSO, the R² was 0.41, 0.69 and 0.97 when using predictors only (no plasma concentrations), 2 or 6 plasma concentrations per occasion as input, respectively. Run times for the ML models ranged from 1.0 s to 8 min, while the run time for the PM model was more than 3 h. Furthermore, building a PM model is more time- and labor-intensive compared with ML. ML predictions of drug PK could thus be used as input into a PKPD model, enabling time-efficient analysis.