Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23197246›Full record

ArticleJournal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics2012

Optimised protocol design for the screening of analgesic compounds in neuropathic pain.

A Taneja, J Nyberg, M Danhof, O Della Pasqua

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

4 authors.

A TanejaDivision of Pharmacology, LACDR, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.
J Nyberg
M Danhof
O Della Pasqua

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We have previously shown how screening experiments for neuropathic pain can be optimised taking into account parameter and model uncertainty. Here we demonstrate how optimised protocols can be used to screen and rank candidate molecules. The concept is illustrated by pregabalin as a new chemical entity and gabapentin as a reference compound. ED-optimality was applied to a logistic regression model describing the relationship between drug exposure and response to evoked pain in the complete Freund's adjuvant (CFA) model in rats. Design variables for optimisation of the experimental protocol included dose levels and sampling times. Prior information from the reference compound was used in conjunction with relative in vitro potency as priors. Results from simulated scenarios were then combined with fitting of experimental data to estimate precision and bias of model parameters for the empirical and optimised designs. The pharmacokinetics of pregabalin was described by a two-compartment model. The expected value of EC(50) of pregabalin was 637.5 ng ml(-1). Model-based analysis of the data yielded median (range) of EC(50) values of 1,125 (898-2412) ng ml(-1) for the empirical protocol and 755 (189-756) ng ml(-1) for the optimised design. In contrast to current practice, optimal design entails different sampling schedule across dose levels. ED-optimised designs should become standard practice in the screening of candidate molecules. It ensures lower bias when estimating the drug potency, facilitating accurate ranking and selection of compounds for further development.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalAminesAnalgesicsAnimalsCohort StudiesCyclohexanecarboxylic AcidsDouble-Blind MethodDrug Evaluation, PreclinicalGabapentingamma-Aminobutyric AcidLogistic ModelsNeuralgiaPregabalinRandom AllocationRatsRats, Sprague-DawleyAminesAnalgesicsCyclohexanecarboxylic AcidsGabapentingamma-Aminobutyric AcidPregabalin

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.