ArticleJournal of clinical pharmacology2015
Clinical trial simulation to evaluate population pharmacokinetics and food effect: capturing abiraterone and nilotinib exposures.
Article in Journal of clinical pharmacology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Population Pharmacokinetic Models for Direct Oral Anticoagulants: A Systematic Review and Clinical Appraisal Using Exposure Simulation.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2022Pooled it
- Effect of high-fat diet on the pharmacokinetics and safety of flumatinib in healthy Chinese subjects.Cancer chemotherapy and pharmacology · 2020Trial
- Using Stochastic Simulation-Estimation and Automated Model Development to Assess Power and Accuracy for Covariate Identification.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2026Article
- Predictive Performance of Pharmacokinetic Model-Based Virtual Trials of Vancomycin in Neonates: Mathematics Matches Clinical Observation.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The objectives of this study were to determine (1) the accuracy with which individual patient level exposure can be determined and (2) whether a known food effect can be identified in a trial simulation of a typical population pharmacokinetic trial. Clinical trial simulations were undertaken using NONMEM VII to assess a typical oncology pharmacokinetic trial design. Nine virtual trials for each compound were performed for combinations of different levels of between-occasion variability, number of patients in the trial, and magnitude of a food covariate on oral clearance. Less than 5% and 20% bias and precision were obtained in individual clearance estimated for both abiraterone and nilotinib using this design. This design resulted in biased and imprecise population clearance estimates for abiraterone. The between-occasion variability in most trials was captured with less than 30% of percent bias and precision. The food effect was detectable as a statistically significant covariate on oral clearance for abiraterone and nilotinib with percent bias and precision of the food covariate less than 20%. These results demonstrate that clinical trial simulation can be used to explore the ability of specific trial designs to evaluate the power to identify individual and population level exposures, covariate, and variability effects.
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.