Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20967521›Full record

ReviewThe AAPS journal2010

Prediction of exposure-response relationships to support first-in-human study design.

John P Gibbs

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The AAPS journal, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Antiretroviral pharmacology in mucosal tissues.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2013
    Review
  13. Review
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

1 author.

John P GibbsAmgen Inc., Seattle, WA, USA. gibbsj@amgen.com

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In drug development, phase 1 first-in-human studies represent a major milestone as the drug moves from preclinical discovery to clinical development activities. The safety of human subjects is paramount to the conduct of these studies and regulatory considerations guide activities. Forces of evolution on the pharmaceutical industry are re-shaping the first-in-human dose selection strategy. Namely, high attrition rates in part due to lack of efficacy have led to the re-organization of research and development organizations around the umbrella of translational research. Translational research strives to bring basic research advances into the clinic and support the reverse transfer of information to enhance compound selection strategies. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) modeling holds a unique position in translational research by attempting to integrate diverse sets of information. PK/PD modeling has demonstrated utility in dose selection and trial design for later stages of drug development and is now being employed with greater prevalence in the translational research setting to manage risk (i.e., oncology and inflammation/immunology). Moving from empirical E (max) models to more mechanistic representations of the biological system, a higher fidelity of human predictions is expected. Strategies that have proven useful for PK predictions are being applied to PK/PD predictions. This review article examines examples of the application of PK/PD modeling in establishing target concentrations for supporting first-in-human study design.

Indexed as

PharmacokineticsPharmacologyDose-Response Relationship, DrugHumansNo-Observed-Adverse-Effect Level

Identifiers

PMID20967521
PMCPMC2976982

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.