ArticleClinical and translational science2021
A pharmacokinetic simulation study to assess the performance of a sparse blood sampling approach to quantify early drug exposure.
Article in Clinical and translational science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Single-Dose Pharmacokinetic Assessment of TNX-102 SL (Cyclobenzaprine HCl Sublingual Tablets): Results From Randomized, Open-Label Studies in Healthy Volunteers.Clinical pharmacology in drug development · 2026Trial
- One Model to Dose Them All: A Population Pharmacokinetic Model for Multiple Aminoglycosides Across the Human Lifespan.Journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Partial Area Under the Curve: A Revelatory Story in Pharmacokinetics.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2026Review
- Predicting Ketamine Exposure in Pediatric Status Epilepticus: A Pharmacokinetic-Machine Learning Approach.European journal of drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics · 2026Article
- Interoccasion variability in population pharmacokinetic models: identifiability, influence, interdependencies and derived study design recommendations.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Estimating early exposure of drugs used for the treatment of emergent conditions is challenging because blood sampling to measure concentrations is difficult. The objective of this work was to evaluate predictive performance of two early concentrations and prior pharmacokinetic (PK) information for estimating early exposure. The performance of a modeling approach was compared with a noncompartmental analysis (NCA). A simulation study was performed using literature-based models for phenytoin (PHT), levetiracetam (LEV), and valproic acid (VPA). These models were used to simulate rich concentration-time profiles from 0 to 2 h. Profiles without residual unexplained variability (RUV) were used to obtain the true partial area under the curve (pAUC) until 2 h after the start of drug infusion. From the profiles with the RUV, two concentrations per patient were randomly selected. These concentrations were analyzed under a population model to obtain individual population PK (PopPK) pAUCs. The NCA pAUCs were calculated using a linear trapezoidal rule. Percent prediction errors (PPEs) for the PopPK pAUCs and NCA pAUCs were calculated. A PPE within ±20% of the true value was considered a success and the number of successes was obtained for 100 simulated datasets. For PHT, LEV, and VPA, respectively, the median value of the success statistics obtained using the PopPK approach of 81%, 92%, and 88% were significantly higher than the 72%, 80%, and 67% using the NCA approach (p < 0.05; Mann-Whitney U test). This study provides a means by which early exposure can be estimated with good precision from two concentrations and a PopPK approach. It can be applied to other settings in which early exposures are of interest.
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.