ArticleJournal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics2009
Methods of utilizing baseline values for indirect response models.
Article in Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.
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
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Joint longitudinal model development: application to exposure-response modeling of ACR and DAS scores in rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with sirukumab.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2018Trial
- Improvement in latent variable indirect response modeling of multiple categorical clinical endpoints: application to modeling of guselkumab treatment effects in psoriatic patients.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2017Trial
- Latent variable indirect response modeling of categorical endpoints representing change from baseline.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2013Trial
- A Four-Day Cold Shower Protocol Does Not Increase Salivary Testosterone in a Small Cohort of Male Athletes: A Research Communication.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Comparison of Model-Predicted and Observed Evinacumab Pharmacokinetics and Efficacy in Children Aged < 5 Years With Homozygous Familial Hypercholesterolemia.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2025Article
- Mechanistic intracellular PK/PD modeling to inform development strategies for small interfering RNA therapeutics.Molecular therapy. Nucleic acids · 2025Article
- Article
- Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling for dose selection for the first-in-human trial of the activated Factor XII inhibitor garadacimab (CSL312).Clinical and translational science · 2022Article
- Transitioning from Basic toward Systems Pharmacodynamic Models: Lessons from Corticosteroids.Pharmacological reviews · 2020Review
- Pharmacodynamic Models of Differential Bortezomib Signaling Across Several Cell Lines of Multiple Myeloma.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2019Article
- Modeling near-continuous clinical endpoint as categorical: application to longitudinal exposure-response modeling of Mayo scores for golimumab in patients with ulcerative colitis.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2018Article
- A comprehensive evaluation of exposure-response relationships in clinical trials: application to support guselkumab dose selection for patients with psoriasis.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2018Article
- Modeling Combined Immunosuppressive and Anti-inflammatory Effects of Dexamethasone and Naproxen in Rats Predicts the Steroid-Sparing Potential of Naproxen.Drug metabolism and disposition: the biological fate of chemicals · 2017Article
- Pharmacodynamic modeling of combined chemotherapeutic effects predicts synergistic activity of gemcitabine and trabectedin in pancreatic cancer cells.Cancer chemotherapy and pharmacology · 2016Article
- Adjustment of endogenous concentrations in pharmacokinetic modeling.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2014Article
- Latent variable indirect response joint modeling of a continuous and a categorical clinical endpoint.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2014Article
- Exposure-response modeling of clinical end points using latent variable indirect response models.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2014Article
- Interactions of everolimus and sorafenib in pancreatic cancer cells.The AAPS journal · 2013Article
- Mechanism-based population modelling for assessment of L-cell function based on total GLP-1 response following an oral glucose tolerance test.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2011Article
- Assessment of pharmacologic area under the curve when baselines are variable.Pharmaceutical research · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study derives and assesses modified equations for Indirect Response Models (IDR) for normalizing data for baseline values (R (0)) and evaluates different methods of utilizing baseline information. Pharmacodynamic response equations for the four basic IDR models were adjusted to reflect a ratio to, a change from (e.g., subtraction), or percent change relative to baseline. The original and modified IDR equations were fitted individually to simulated data sets and compared for recovery of true parameter values. Handling of baseline values was investigated using: estimation (E), fixing at the starting value (F1), and fixing at an average of starting and returning values of response profiles (F2). The performance of each method was evaluated using simulated data with variability under various scenarios of different doses, numbers of data points, type of IDR model, and degree of residual errors. The median error and inter-quartile range relative to true values were used as indicators of bias and precision for each method. Applying IDR models to normalized data required modifications in writing differential equations and initial conditions. Use of an observed/baseline ratio led to parameter estimates of k (in) = k (out) and inability to detect differences in k (in) values for groups with different R (0), whereas the modified equations recovered the true values. An increase in variability increased the %Bias and %Imprecision for each R (0) fitting method and was more pronounced for 'F1'. The overall performance of 'F2' was as good as that of 'E' and better than 'F1'. The %Bias in estimation of parameters SC(50) (IC(50)) and k (out) followed the same trend, whereas use of 'F1' or 'F2' resulted in the least bias for S (max) (I (max)). The IDR equations need modifications to directly assess baseline-normalized data. In general, Method 'E' resulted in lesser bias and better precision compared to 'F1'. With rich datasets including sufficient information on the return to baseline, Method 'F2' is reasonable. Method 'E' offers no significant advantage over 'F1' with datasets lacking information on the return to baseline phase. Handling baseline responses properly is an essential aspect of applying pharmacodynamic models.
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.