ArticleJournal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics2015
The impact of composite AUC estimates on the prediction of systemic exposure in toxicology experiments.
Article in Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Considerations for Applying Route-to-Route Extrapolation to Assess the Safety of Oral Exposure to Substances.Biomolecules · 2022Article
- Effect of the Phragmitis Rhizoma Aqueous Extract on the Pharmacokinetics of Docetaxel in Rats.Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening · 2019Article
- Model-based serial blood sampling protocol for minimal mortality and better recovery in small to medium sized tilapia.Biology open · 2018Article
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
Current toxicity protocols relate measures of systemic exposure (i.e. AUC, Cmax) as obtained by non-compartmental analysis to observed toxicity. A complicating factor in this practice is the potential bias in the estimates defining safe drug exposure. Moreover, it prevents the assessment of variability. The objective of the current investigation was therefore (a) to demonstrate the feasibility of applying nonlinear mixed effects modelling for the evaluation of toxicokinetics and (b) to assess the bias and accuracy in summary measures of systemic exposure for each method. Here, simulation scenarios were evaluated, which mimic toxicology protocols in rodents. To ensure differences in pharmacokinetic properties are accounted for, hypothetical drugs with varying disposition properties were considered. Data analysis was performed using non-compartmental methods and nonlinear mixed effects modelling. Exposure levels were expressed as area under the concentration versus time curve (AUC), peak concentrations (Cmax) and time above a predefined threshold (TAT). Results were then compared with the reference values to assess the bias and precision of parameter estimates. Higher accuracy and precision were observed for model-based estimates (i.e. AUC, Cmax and TAT), irrespective of group or treatment duration, as compared with non-compartmental analysis. Despite the focus of guidelines on establishing safety thresholds for the evaluation of new molecules in humans, current methods neglect uncertainty, lack of precision and bias in parameter estimates. The use of nonlinear mixed effects modelling for the analysis of toxicokinetics provides insight into variability and should be considered for predicting safe exposure in humans.
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.