ReviewCurrent pharmacology reports2016
The Role of Interaction Model in Simulation of Drug Interactions and QT Prolongation.
Review in Current pharmacology reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Detecting drug communities and predicting comprehensive drug-drug interactions via balance regularized semi-nonnegative matrix factorization.Journal of cheminformatics · 2019Article
- TMFUF: a triple matrix factorization-based unified framework for predicting comprehensive drug-drug interactions of new drugs.BMC bioinformatics · 2018Article
- An Integrated Local Classification Model of Predicting Drug-Drug Interactions via Dempster-Shafer Theory of Evidence.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Predicting and understanding comprehensive drug-drug interactions via semi-nonnegative matrix factorization.BMC systems biology · 2018Article
- Real Patient and its Virtual Twin: Application of Quantitative Systems Toxicology Modelling in the Cardiac Safety Assessment of Citalopram.The AAPS journal · 2017Article
- Have the Findings from Clinical Risk Prediction and Trials Any Key Messages for Safety Pharmacology?Frontiers in physiology · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Computational modelling is a cornerstone of Comprehensive In Vitro Proarrhythmia Assay and is re-increasingly being used in drug development. Electrophysiological effects of drug-drug interactions can be predicted in silico, e.g. with the use of in vitro cardiac ion channel data, PK profiles and human ventricular cardiomyocyte models. There are, however, several approaches with different assumptions used to assess the combined effect of multiple drugs, and there is no agreed standard interaction model. The aim of this study was to assess whether the choice of the drug-drug interaction (DDI) model (Bliss independence, Loewe additivity, or simple sum) influences the results of QT interval simulation trial. The Simcyp Simulator version 12.1 (Simcyp Ltd. [part of Certara], Sheffield, UK) and Cardiac Safety Simulator 2.0 (Simcyp Ltd. [part of Certara], Sheffield, UK) were used to simulate results of 8 virtual trials mimicking clinical studies and generate individual QTc data. The combined effect of inhibitory actions of drugs which were given simultaneously was calculated with use of three different interaction models. The PD effect of DDI was assessed and the differences between mean observed and mean predicted ΔQTcB values for terfenadine interactions were not statistically significant in all but one cases. Differences between the three DDI models are not statistically significant, implying that the choice of the DDI model, in the case of lack of synergy or antagonism, is irrelevant to the average predicted effect at the clinical level. However, in some cases, it can influence the verdict on combinatorial therapy safety for individual patients.
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.