Trial reportEuropean journal of drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics
Relative pharmacokinetics of three amikacin brands in onco-hemotologic pediatric patients experiencing febrile neutropeina.
Trial report in European journal of drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Three commercially available brands of amikacin were investigated in a parallel study design for the assessment of comparative pharmacokinetics in pediatric oncology patients with chemotherapy-induced neutropenic febrile episode. Amikacin concentration in serum samples was determined by fluorescence polarization immunoassay method using Abbott TDx system. Computer software, PK II was used for computation of pharmacokinetic parameters of amikacin. The serum concentration of all brands nonsignificantly (p > 0.05) varied at all time points, except at 1 and 2 hrs post dosing. At 1 hr post dosing, the serum concentration of brand II varied from rest of two brands. Whereas at 2 hr following I/V infusion, brands II and I were statistically different. Highest serum concentration of 38.69 +/- 1.45 microg/ml was observed in case of brand III while brands I and II showed lower but not significantly different serum concentration values, i.e., 36.30 +/- 1.65 and 37.89 +/- 1.32 microg/ml, respectively when compared with brand I. The other pharmacokinetic parameters of 3 brands found to have non-significant difference (P < 0.05) except, t(1/2)alpha and Cl of brands I and II that deviated statistically significant (p < 0.01). The relative bioavailability of brand II and III as compared with brand I, considered as standard 86.17 and 96.86%, respectively falls within the accepted limits of +/- 20% required for the bioequivalence of any two brands. Based upon findings of the present study, all these brands may be used interchangeably in oncology patients. Further studies, however are needed to determine whether the statistically elevated Cl value in brand II is of any clinical significance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.