SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2015
Model-based meta-analysis of the effects of non-selective and α1-selective GABAA receptor agonists in healthy volunteers.
Synthesis in European 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, 3 of them syntheses 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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Applications of Model-Based Meta-Analysis in Drug Development.Pharmaceutical research · 2022Pooled it
- Longitudinal model-based meta-analysis for survival probabilities in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2020Pooled it
- Comparative efficacy of nonhormonal drugs on menopausal hot flashes.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2016Pooled it
- Advanced Methods for Dose and Regimen Finding During Drug Development: Summary of the EMA/EFPIA Workshop on Dose Finding (London 4-5 December 2014).CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo quantify pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) relationships of various classes of GABAA agonists in healthy volunteers, in order to investigate the sensitivity of the biomarker responses due to differing GABAA-subtype selectivity and to explore the correlation between biomarker responses and side effects of these drugs.
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted for published placebo-controlled clinical studies of non- and α1-selective GABAA drugs in healthy volunteers. PK/PD models were developed for concentrations and biomarker outcomes (saccadic eye movement (SEM), visual analogue scale (VAS), digit symbol substitution task (DSST), and critical flicker fusion test (CFFT)) extracted from included studies. Predicted responses and equivalent doses for biomarkers (based on predicted response) were used to compare drug effects. And the relationship between biomarkers and safety was explored by linear regression.
resultsA total of 2237 data from 163 articles were included. Based on PK and placebo effect modeling, linear biomarker-concentration relationships well fit the data. The α1-selective compounds had similar equivalent doses for VAS, DSST, and CFFT (4.7-6.7 mg), which were about three to seven times lower than that for SEM (14.4-35.5 mg), while such difference was less evident for non-selective drugs. DSST had the highest correlations with incidences of somnolence and dizziness.
conclusionsThe integral PK/PD models of GABAA agonists were established in healthy volunteers. SEM was identified as the most sensitive biomarker in differentiating GABAA receptor α1 subtype selective compounds. The exploratory analysis implied that different relationships existed between the drug effects on biomarkers and the adverse event profiles in healthy volunteers.
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.