ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2012
Adaptive trials in paediatric development: dealing with heterogeneity and uncertainty in pharmacokinetic differences in children.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dose rationale and pharmacokinetics of dexmedetomidine in mechanically ventilated new-borns: impact of design optimisation.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2019Trial
- Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study of trofinetide in pediatric Rett syndrome.Neurology · 2019Trial
- Evolving Real-World Data and Evidence Use for New Drugs and Regenerative Medical Products Approvals in Japan-An Analysis of the 6-Year Trend.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2025Review
- Insights into the adoption of innovative clinical trials across therapeutic areas using clinical trials registry data and large Language models.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Use of lorazepam for analgosedation during mechanical ventilation in pediatric intensive care.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Non-static framework for understanding adaptive designs: an ethical justification in paediatric trials.Journal of medical ethics · 2022Article
- Improving clinical paediatric research and learning from COVID-19: recommendations by the Conect4Children expert advice group.Pediatric research · 2022Article
- Pharmaceutical Care in Children: Self-reported knowledge, attitudes and competency of final-year pharmacy students in Jordan.Sultan Qaboos University medical journal · 2018Article
- Challenges in translational drug research in neuropathic and inflammatory pain: the prerequisites for a new paradigm.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2017Review
- How to optimise drug study design: pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics studies introduced to paediatricians.The Journal of pharmacy and pharmacology · 2017Review
- Model-Based Assessment of Alternative Study Designs in Pediatric Trials. Part I: Frequentist Approaches.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2016Article
- Article
- Dosing in children: a critical review of the pharmacokinetic allometric scaling and modelling approaches in paediatric drug development and clinical settings.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2014Review
- A report from the pediatric formulations task force: perspectives on the state of child-friendly oral dosage forms.The AAPS journal · 2013Review
- Editors' pick 2012.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2013Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo assess whether an adaptive design in early clinical trials based on the paradigm of variable dosing and controlled exposure can provide better dosing recommendations compared with the standard fixed dose approach.
methodsIn a clinical trial simulation setting, a paediatric study was simulated using a pharmacokinetic model previously developed for abacavir. Plasma concentrations following the current recommended dose (8 mg kg⁻¹) were taken at standard sampling times, exposures (AUC) were calculated and doses individually adapted to reach the target exposure (i.e. effective exposure in adults). A second round of simulations followed with the adapted doses, and the resulting concentrations were fitted again with the same model. Exposure distributions in both conditions (i.e. fixed dose and controlled exposure) were compared with the target exposure.
resultsThe AUC distribution after the current dose resulted in a median exposure of 6.43 mg h l⁻¹ (90th percentile 3.13-10.67 mg h l⁻¹). A total of 61 of 128 subjects showed AUC values either too low or to high compared with the target exposure. After dose adjustment, the median exposure was 6.94 mg h l⁻¹ (5.57-8.25 mg h l⁻¹), and only 14 subjects deviated from the target range.
conclusionsAdaptive randomization can be used to optimize dosing regimens in early paediatric clinical trials. The randomization of patients to target exposure rather than dose increases the probability of demonstrating efficacy (i.e. study power) compared with dose-controlled trials. Furthermore, it contributes to further understanding of the role of dose on the total heterogeneity in clinical response.
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.