ArticlePharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Population Pharmacokinetic Method to Predict Within-Subject Variability Using Single-Period Clinical Data.
Article in Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Sample sizes for single-period clinical trials, including pharmacokinetic studies, are statistically determined by within-subject variability (WSV). However, it is difficult to determine WSV without replicate-designed clinical trial data, and statisticians typically estimate optimal sample sizes using total variability, not WSV. We have developed an efficient population-based method to predict WSV accurately with single-period clinical trial data and demonstrate method performance with eperisone. We simulated 1000 virtual pharmacokinetic clinical trial datasets based on single-period and dense sampling studies, with various study sizes and levels of WSV and interindividual variabilities (IIVs). The estimated residual variability (RV) resulting from population pharmacokinetic methods were compared with WSV values. In addition, 3 × 3 bioequivalence results of eperisone were used to evaluate method performance with a real clinical dataset. With WSV of 40% or less, regardless of IIV magnitude, RV was well approximated by WSV for sample sizes greater than 18 subjects. RV was underestimated at WSV of 50% or greater, even with datasets having low IIV and numerous subjects. Using the eperisone dataset, RV was 44% to 48%, close to the true value of 50%. In conclusion, the estimated RV accurately predicted WSV in single-period studies, validating this method for sample size estimation in clinical trials.
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.