ArticleCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2021
Application of a dual mechanistic approach to support bilastine dose selection for older adults.
Article 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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- From In Vivo Predictive Dissolution to Virtual Bioequivalence: A GastroPlusPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Apixaban and rivaroxaban's physiologically-based pharmacokinetic model validation in hospitalized patients: A first step for larger use of a priori modeling approach at bed side.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2023Article
- Key Factors in Effective Patient-Tailored Dosing of Fluoroquinolones in Urological Infections: Interindividual Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Variability.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Application of a dual mechanistic approach to support bilastine dose selection for older adults.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 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
10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate bilastine dosing recommendations in older adults and overcome the limitation of insufficient data from phase I studies in this underrepresented population. This was achieved by integrating bilastine physicochemical, in vitro and in vivo data in young adults and the effect of aging in the pharmacology by means of two alternative approaches: a physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model and a semi-mechanistic population pharmacokinetic (Senescence) model. Intestinal apical efflux and basolateral influx transporters were needed in the PBPK model to capture the observations from young adults after single i.v. (10 mg) and p.o. (20 mg) doses, supporting the hypothesis of involvement of gut transporters on secretion. The model was then used to extrapolate the pharmacokinetics (PKs) to elderly subjects considering their specific physiology. Additionally, the Senescence model was develop starting from a published population PK) model, previously applied for pediatrics, and incorporating declining functions on different physiological systems and changes in body composition with aging. Both models were qualified using observed data in a small group of young elderlies (N = 16, mean age = 68.69 years). The PBPK model was further used to evaluate the dose in older subjects (mean age = 80 years) via simulation. The PBPK model supported the hypothesis that basolateral influx and apical efflux transporters are involved in bilastine PK. Both, PBPK and Senescence models indicated that a 20 mg q.d. dose is safe and effective for geriatrics of any age. This approach provides an alternative to generate supplementary data to inform dosing recommendations in under-represented groups 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.