Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34053199›Full record

Trial reportCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2021

Data-driven personalization of a physiologically based pharmacokinetic model for caffeine: A systematic assessment.

Rebekka Fendt, Ute Hofmann, Annika R P Schneider, Elke Schaeffeler, Rolf Burghaus, Ali Yilmaz, Lars Mathias Blank, Reinhold Kerb, Jörg Lippert, Jan-Frederik Schlender and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Virtual twin for healthcare management.Frontiers in digital health · 2023
    Article
  20. Article
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

12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Rebekka FendtSystems Pharmacology & Medicine, Bayer AG, Leverkusen, Germany.
Ute HofmannDr. Margarete Fischer-Bosch-Institute of Clinical Pharmacology, Stuttgart, Germany.
Annika R P SchneiderSystems Pharmacology & Medicine, Bayer AG, Leverkusen, Germany.
Elke SchaeffelerDr. Margarete Fischer-Bosch-Institute of Clinical Pharmacology, Stuttgart, Germany.
Rolf BurghausSystems Pharmacology & Medicine, Bayer AG, Leverkusen, Germany.
Ali YilmazDepartment of Cardiology I, University Hospital Muenster, Münster, Germany.
Lars Mathias BlankInstitute of Applied Microbiology, Aachen Biology and Biotechnology, Rheinisch-Westfaelische Technische Hochschule Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Reinhold KerbDr. Margarete Fischer-Bosch-Institute of Clinical Pharmacology, Stuttgart, Germany.
Jörg LippertSystems Pharmacology & Medicine, Bayer AG, Leverkusen, Germany.
Jan-Frederik SchlenderSystems Pharmacology & Medicine, Bayer AG, Leverkusen, Germany.
Matthias SchwabDr. Margarete Fischer-Bosch-Institute of Clinical Pharmacology, Stuttgart, Germany.
Lars KuepferSystems Pharmacology & Medicine, Bayer AG, Leverkusen, Germany.
Bayer (Germany) · DEUniversity of Tübingen · DEDr. Margarete Fischer-Bosch-Institute of Clinical Pharmacology · DEUniversity Hospital Münster · DE

Funding

German Federal Ministry of Education and Research 031L0037German Federal Ministry of Education and Research 031L0039Horizon 2020-PHC-2015 U-PGx 668353Robert Bosch Stiftung
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models have been proposed as a tool for more accurate individual pharmacokinetic (PK) predictions and model-informed precision dosing, but their application in clinical practice is still rare. This study systematically assesses the benefit of using individual patient information to improve PK predictions. A PBPK model of caffeine was stepwise personalized by using individual data on (1) demography, (2) physiology, and (3) cytochrome P450 (CYP) 1A2 phenotype of 48 healthy volunteers participating in a single-dose clinical study. Model performance was benchmarked against a caffeine base model simulated with parameters of an average individual. In the first step, virtual twins were generated based on the study subjects' demography (height, weight, age, sex), which implicated the rescaling of average organ volumes and blood flows. The accuracy of PK simulations improved compared with the base model. The percentage of predictions within 0.8-fold to 1.25-fold of the observed values increased from 45.8% (base model) to 57.8% (Step 1). However, setting physiological parameters (liver blood flow determined by magnetic resonance imaging, glomerular filtration rate, hematocrit) to measured values in the second step did not further improve the simulation result (59.1% in the 1.25-fold range). In the third step, virtual twins matching individual demography, physiology, and CYP1A2 activity considerably improved the simulation results. The percentage of data within the 1.25-fold range was 66.15%. This case study shows that individual PK profiles can be predicted more accurately by considering individual attributes and that personalized PBPK models could be a valuable tool for model-informed precision dosing approaches in the future.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalAdolescentAdultCaffeineComputer SimulationCytochrome P-450 CYP1A2Dose-Response Relationship, DrugFemaleGlomerular Filtration RateHumansLiverMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedPhenotypePrecision MedicineCaffeineCYP1A2 protein, humanCytochrome P-450 CYP1A2

Identifiers

PMID34053199
PMCPMC8302243
OpenAlexW3164107833

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.