Trial reportJournal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics2014
Population pharmacokinetic analysis of fexofenadine in Japanese pediatric patients.
Trial report in Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving Understanding of Fexofenadine Pharmacokinetics to Assess Pgp Phenotypic Activity in Older Adult Patients Using Population Pharmacokinetic Modeling.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2025Article
- Development of Human Membrane Transporters: Drug Disposition and Pharmacogenetics.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A population pharmacokinetic analysis was conducted to characterize the pharmacokinetics of fexofenadine in Japanese pediatric patients (6 months through 16 years) with perennial allergic rhinitis or atopic dermatitis. The dataset was composed of 515 patients (including 109 adults), for a total of 1,080 concentration-time points. The analysis was performed with NONMEM using the SAEM method. Several structural models and residual error models were evaluated. The relationship between the individual estimates and the potential covariates was then investigated: demographic and pathophysiologic characteristics were tested as potential model covariates (forward selection method). The qualification of the model was performed using visual predictive check and bootstrap. A two-compartment disposition model with first-order absorption best fitted the data. The inter-individual variability was modeled through an exponential error model for all parameters (except for ka for which no inter-individual term could be estimated), while a proportional error model was used to model the residual variability. The final model included two covariates on elimination clearance and one on the intercompartmental clearance. CL/F was related to BSA and patient's age (expressed in months) Q/F was also related to BSA. Once the model was correctly qualified, exposure parameters such as Cmax and AUCτ were computed and compared between each age sub-group and between Japanese and Caucasians patients. These comparisons did not reveal any major difference (less than 50 %) between subgroups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24633780What 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.