Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16984214›Full record

ArticleClinical pharmacokinetics2006

Development and evaluation of a generic physiologically based pharmacokinetic model for children.

Andrea N Edginton, Walter Schmitt, Stefan Willmann

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical pharmacokinetics, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 176 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
176citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

176 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Guideline
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

116 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Andrea N EdgintonCompetence Center Systems Biology, Bayer Technology Services GmbH, Leverkusen, Germany. andreanicole.edginton@bayertechnology.com
Walter Schmitt
Stefan Willmann

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical trials in children are being encouraged by regulatory authorities in light of the immense off-label and unlicensed use of drugs in the paediatric population. The use of in silico techniques for pharmacokinetic prediction will aid in the development of paediatric clinical trials by guiding dosing regimens, ensuring efficient blood sampling times, maximising therapeutic effect and potentially reducing the number of children required for the study. The goal of this study was to extend an existing physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model for adults to reflect the age-related physiological changes in children from birth to 18 years of age and, in conjunction with a previously developed age-specific clearance model, to evaluate the accuracy of the paediatric PBPK model to predict paediatric plasma profiles.

methodsThe age-dependence of bodyweight, height, organ weights, blood flows, interstitial space and vascular space were taken from the literature. Physiological parameters that were used in the PBPK model were checked against literature values to ensure consistency. These included cardiac output, portal vein flow, extracellular water, total body water, lipid and protein. Five model compounds (paracetamol [acetaminophen], alfentanil, morphine, theophylline and levofloxacin) were then examined by gathering the plasma concentration-time profiles, volumes of distribution and elimination half-lives from different ages of children and adults. First, the adult data were used to ensure accurate prediction of pharmacokinetic profiles. The model was then scaled to the specific age of children in the study, including the scaling of clearance, and the generated plasma concentration profiles, volumes of distribution and elimination half-lives were compared with literature values.

resultsPhysiological scaling produced highly age-dependent cardiac output, portal vein flow, extracellular water, total body water, lipid and protein values that well represented literature data. The pharmacokinetic profiles in children for the five compounds were well predicted and the trends associated with age were evident. Thus, young neonates had plasma concentrations greater than the adults and older children had concentrations less than the adults. Eighty-three percent, 97% and 87% of the predicted plasma concentrations, volumes of distribution and elimination half-lives, respectively, were within 50% of the study reported values. There was no age-dependent bias for term neonates to 18 years of age when examining volumes of distribution and elimination half-lives.

conclusionThis study suggests that the developed paediatric PBPK model can be used to scale pharmacokinetics from adults. The accurate prediction of pharmacokinetic parameters in children will aid in the development of dosing regimens and sampling times, thus increasing the efficiency of paediatric clinical trials.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalPharmacokineticsAdolescentAgingAlgorithmsArea Under CurveBiasBlood VolumeBody HeightBody WeightChemical PhenomenaChemistry, PhysicalChildChild, PreschoolComputer SimulationHumans

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.