SynthesisThe Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy2017
Population-based meta-analysis of roxithromycin pharmacokinetics: dosing implications of saturable absorption and protein binding.
Synthesis in The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Population-based meta-analysis of chloroquine: informing chloroquine pharmacokinetics in COVID-19 patients.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2021Pooled it
- Pharmacokinetic analysis across studies to drive knowledge-integration: A tutorial on individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA).CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2023Article
- Predicting nonlinear relationships between external and internal concentrations with physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling.Toxicology and applied pharmacology · 2022Article
- Opportunities and challenges related to saturation of toxicokinetic processes: Implications for risk assessment.Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP · 2021Article
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
Abstract
Objectives: The macrolide antibiotic roxithromycin has seen widespread clinical use for several decades; however, no population pharmacokinetic analysis has been published. Early studies indicated saturation of protein binding and absorption at doses within the approved range, which may impact pharmacodynamic target attainment since regimens of 150 mg twice daily and 300 mg once daily are used interchangeably in clinical practice. This study aimed to develop a population-based meta-analysis of roxithromycin pharmacokinetics, and utilize this model to inform optimal dosing regimens. Methods: Following an extensive search, roxithromycin pharmacokinetic data were collected or digitized from literature publications. Population pharmacokinetic modelling was undertaken with ADAPT. Dosing simulations were performed to investigate differences in exposure and pharmacodynamic target attainment between dosing regimens. Results: A two-compartment model with saturable absorption described the data ( n = 63); changes in free drug exposure were simulated using a saturable protein binding model. Simulations indicated that a 300 mg daily regimen achieves a 37% and 53% lower total or free AUC ( f AUC), respectively, compared with 150 mg twice daily. These pharmacokinetic differences translated to significantly lower target attainment ( f AUC/MIC ratio >20) with a 300 mg daily regimen at MICs of 0.5 and 1 mg/L (51% and 7%) compared with patients receiving 150 mg twice daily (82% and 54%). Conclusions: Roxithromycin displays saturable absorption and protein binding leading to lower exposure and lower target attainment at MICs ≥0.5 mg/L with widely used once-daily dosing regimens, indicating that twice-daily regimens may be preferable for pathogens less susceptible to roxithromycin.
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.