Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26100012›Full record

ArticleThe AAPS journal2015

Are Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Models Reporting the Right C(max)? Central Venous Versus Peripheral Sampling Site.

Helen Musther, Katherine L Gill, Manoranjenni Chetty, Amin Rostami-Hodjegan, Malcolm Rowland, Masoud Jamei

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The AAPS journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Manuscript DMD-D-25-00346 The impact of glycocalyx on partitioning and distribution of basic drugs.Drug metabolism and disposition: the biological fate of chemicals · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Sampling Site Has a Critical Impact on Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling.The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics · 2020
    Article
  8. Article
  9. The use of PBPK modeling across the pediatric age range using propofol as a case.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2018
    Article
  10. Applied Concepts in PBPK Modeling: How to Build a PBPK/PD Model.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2016
    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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Helen MustherSimcyp Limited (a Certara Company), Blades Enterprise Centre, John Street, Sheffield, S2 4SU, UK, helen.musther@certara.com.
Katherine L Gill
Manoranjenni Chetty
Amin Rostami-Hodjegan
Malcolm Rowland
Masoud Jamei
Simcyp (United Kingdom) · GBUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models can over-predict maximum plasma concentrations (C(max)) following intravenous administration. A proposed explanation is that invariably PBPK models report the concentration in the central venous compartment, rather than the site where the samples are drawn. The purpose of this study was to identify and validate potential corrective models based on anatomy and physiology governing the blood supply at the site of sampling and incorporate them into a PBPK platform. Four models were developed and scrutinised for their corrective potential. All assumed the peripheral sampling site concentration could be described by contributions from surrounding tissues and utilised tissue-specific concentration-time profiles reported from the full-PBPK model within the Simcyp Simulator. Predicted concentrations for the peripheral site were compared to the observed C(max). The models results were compared to clinical data for 15 studies over seven compounds (alprazolam, imipramine, metoprolol, midazolam, omeprazole, rosiglitazone and theophylline). The final model utilised tissue concentrations from adipose, skin, muscle and a contribution from artery. Predicted C(max) values considering the central venous compartment can over-predict the observed values up to 10-fold whereas the new sampling site predictions were within 2-fold of observed values. The model was particularly relevant for studies where traditional PBPK models over-predict early time point concentrations. A successful corrective model for C(max) prediction has been developed, subject to further validation. These models can be enrolled as built-up modules into PBPK platforms and potentially account for factors that may affect the initial mixing of the blood at the site of sampling.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalPharmacokineticsAdministration, IntravenousAnimalsHumansPharmaceutical PreparationsPharmaceutical Preparations

Identifiers

PMID26100012
PMCPMC4540731
OpenAlexW1680524016

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.