Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27147514›Full record

Trial reportClinical pharmacokinetics2016

Pharmacokinetic Modeling and Dose Selection in a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of a Human Recombinant Alkaline Phosphatase in Healthy Volunteers.

Esther Peters, Jules A A C Heuberger, Renger Tiessen, Andrea van Elsas, Rosalinde Masereeuw, Jacques Arend, Jasper Stevens, Peter Pickkers

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical pharmacokinetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. A randomized Phase 1b trial evaluating the pharmacodynamics of ilofotase alfa in adults with hypophosphatasia.Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2026
    Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Sepsis associated acute kidney injury.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2019
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Esther PetersDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Radboud university medical center, PO Box 9101, Internal Mailbox, 710, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Jules A A C HeubergerCentre for Human Drug Research, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Renger TiessenPRA Health Sciences, Zuidlaren, The Netherlands.
Andrea van ElsasAM-Pharma, Bunnik, The Netherlands.
Rosalinde MasereeuwDepartment of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Jacques ArendAM-Pharma, Bunnik, The Netherlands.
Jasper StevensCentre for Human Drug Research, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Peter PickkersDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Radboud university medical center, PO Box 9101, Internal Mailbox, 710, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. peter.pickkers@radboudumc.nl.
AM–Pharma (Netherlands) · NLCentre for Human Drug Research · NLRadboud University Medical Center · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivePrevious clinical trials have suggested that bovine intestinal alkaline phosphatase has renal protective effects in patients with sepsis-associated acute kidney injury. We conducted a first-in-human study to investigate the pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability of a novel human recombinant alkaline phosphatase (recAP), and we developed a population pharmacokinetic model to support dose selection for future patient studies.

methodsIn a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase I trial, healthy volunteers received a single dose of recAP (200, 500, 1000 or 2000 U/kg; n = 33; 3:1 ratio) or multiple doses of recAP (500 or 1000 U/kg; n = 18; 2:1 ratio) via a 1-h intravenous infusion on three consecutive days. Serum recAP concentrations, alkaline phosphatase (AP) activity levels and anti-drug antibodies were measured, and safety parameters were monitored. A population pharmacokinetic model was developed, and simulations were performed to guide dose selection for a phase IIa/b trial.

resultsPeak concentrations of recAP and peak AP activity were reached at the end of the 1-h infusion and showed a rapid decline, with about 10 % of the maximum concentration remaining at 4 h and less than 5 % remaining 24 h post-start. RecAP treatment was generally well tolerated, and anti-drug antibodies could not be detected in the serum up to 2 weeks post-injection after a single dose, or up to 3 weeks post-injection after multiple doses. A four-compartment model best described the pharmacokinetics of recAP administration, with moderate inter-individual variability on the central volume of distribution and elimination rate constant. Simulations showed that 1-h intravenous infusions of 250, 500 and 1000 U/kg recAP once every 24 h for three consecutive days constituted the dosing regimen that best met the criteria for dose selection in patient studies.

conclusionRecAP did not raise any safety concerns when administered to healthy volunteers. A population pharmacokinetic model was developed to support dose selection for patient studies.

trial registration2013-002694-21 (EudraCT).

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAlkaline PhosphataseBody Mass IndexComputer SimulationDose-Response Relationship, DrugDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansInfusions, IntravenousMaleMiddle AgedModels, BiologicalRacial GroupsRecombinant ProteinsAlkaline PhosphataseRecombinant Proteins

Identifiers

PMID27147514
PMCPMC5021756
OpenAlexW2346271265

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.