Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25724291›Full record

Trial reportClinical pharmacokinetics2015

Population Pharmacokinetic Modeling of Guanfacine in Pediatric Patients.

William Knebel, Mary Corcoran, James Ermer, Marc R Gastonguay

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IClinical Trial, Phase IIRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical pharmacokinetics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 35% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

William KnebelMetrum Research Group LLC, 2 Tunxis Road, Suite 112, Tariffville, CT, 06081, USA, billk@metrumrg.com.
Mary Corcoran
James Ermer
Marc R Gastonguay
Metrum Research Group (United States) · USTakeda (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe population pharmacokinetics of guanfacine extended release were characterized in pediatric patients aged 6-17 years using NONMEM and evaluated by predictive check and bootstrap.

methodsData were described using a one-compartment model. A covariate modeling approach that emphasized parameter estimation rather than stepwise hypothesis testing was implemented. A nonparametric bootstrap procedure and a predictive check method were used to evaluate the final model and parameter estimates.

resultsTypical population pharmacokinetic parameters (95 % confidence interval), given the reference covariates (Caucasian, male, age 12 years, weight 50 kg), were 33.1 (30.2-36.4) L/h for apparent clearance (CL/F), 804 (703-900) L for apparent volume of distribution, 0.552 (0.437-0.670) h(-1) for the absorption rate constant, and 0.651 (0.608-0.697) h for absorption lag time. DISCUSSION: The pharmacokinetics of guanfacine are similar in pediatric patients compared with adults when appropriately scaled by patient weight. The main predictor of guanfacine exposure, as determined by a change in CL/F, was weight. Effects of the other covariates (age, sex, and race) on CL/F were estimated with reasonable precision; however, the additional effects of age, sex, and race can be considered to have little to no clinical relevance.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdrenergic alpha-2 Receptor AgonistsAttention Deficit Disorder with HyperactivityBlack or African AmericanBody WeightChildDose-Response Relationship, DrugDouble-Blind MethodFemaleGuanfacineHumansMaleModels, BiologicalNonlinear DynamicsWhite PeopleAdrenergic alpha-2 Receptor AgonistsGuanfacine

Identifiers

PMID25724291
OpenAlexW2028602413

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.