Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29315504›Full record

ReviewClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2018

Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Model Qualification and Reporting Procedures for Regulatory Submissions: A Consortium Perspective.

Mohamad Shebley, Punam Sandhu, Arian Emami Riedmaier, Masoud Jamei, Rangaraj Narayanan, Aarti Patel, Sheila Annie Peters, Venkatesh Pilla Reddy, Ming Zheng, Loeckie de Zwart and 24 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 203 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
203citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

203 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Review
  12. Applications of artificial intelligence in nuclear medicine.Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik · 2026
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

143 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

34 authors.

Mohamad ShebleyAbbVie Inc., North Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Punam SandhuMerck & Co., Kenilworth, New Jersey, USA.
Arian Emami RiedmaierAbbVie Inc., North Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Masoud JameiSimcyp (a Certara Company), Sheffield, UK.
Rangaraj NarayananShire, Lexington, MA, USA.
Aarti PatelGlaxoSmithKline, Ware, UK.
Sheila Annie PetersMerck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.
Venkatesh Pilla ReddyAstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK.
Ming ZhengBristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA.
Loeckie de ZwartJohnson & Johnson, Beerse, Belgium.
Maud BenetonServier, Centre-Val de Loire, France.
Francois BouzomUCB Biopharma, Braine I'Alleud, Belgium.
Jun ChenSanofi, Région de Montpellier, France.
Yuan ChenGenentech, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Yumi ClearyRoche Innovation Center, Basel, Switzerland.
Christiane CollinsAstellas, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Gemma L DickinsonEli Lilly & Company, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Nassim DjebliSanofi, Région de Montpellier, France.
Heidi J EinolfNovartis, East Hanover, NJ, USA.
Iain GardnerSimcyp (a Certara Company), Sheffield, UK.
Felix HuthNovartis, Basel, Switzerland.
Faraz KazmiJohnson & Johnson, Beerse, Belgium.
Feras KhalilGrünenthal, Aachen, Germany.
Jing LinSunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc., Marlborough, MA, USA.
Aleksandrs OdinecsNektar Therapeutics, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Chirag PatelTakeda Pharmaceuticals International Co., Cambridge, MA, USA.
Haojing RongShire, Lexington, MA, USA.
Edgar SchuckEisai Inc., Woodliff Lake, NJ, USA.
Pradeep SharmaAstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK.
Shu-Pei WuVertex Pharmaceuticals, Boston, MA, USA.
Yang XuAmgen, CA, USA.
Shinji YamazakiPfizer, San Diego, CA, USA.
Kenta YoshidaGenentech, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Malcolm RowlandUniversity of Manchester, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This work provides a perspective on the qualification and verification of physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) platforms/models intended for regulatory submission based on the collective experience of the Simcyp Consortium members. Examples of regulatory submission of PBPK analyses across various intended applications are presented and discussed. European Medicines Agency (EMA) and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recent draft guidelines regarding PBPK analyses and reporting are encouraging, and to advance the use and acceptability of PBPK analyses, more clarity and flexibility are warranted.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationDrug ApprovalModels, BiologicalPharmacokineticsEuropeHumansUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug Administration

Identifiers

PMID29315504
PMCPMC6032820

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.