ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2022
Comparison between physiologically based pharmacokinetic and population pharmacokinetic modelling to select paediatric doses of gepotidacin in plague.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application of Pharmacometric Modelling Towards Precise Dosing in Neonates, Infants and Toddlers: A Scoping Review.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2026Review
- Advances and Challenges in Pharmacokinetic Modeling for PET Imaging: Compartment Models, Input Functions, and Quantitative Techniques.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2026Review
- Use of population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling to inform antimalarial dose optimization in infants.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Review
- Gyrase and Topoisomerase IV: Recycling Old Targets for New Antibacterials to Combat Fluoroquinolone Resistance.ACS infectious diseases · 2024Review
- Translational PK/PD for the Development of Novel Antibiotics-A Drug Developer's Perspective.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- All Roads Lead to Rome: Enhancing the Probability of Target Attainment with Different Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Modelling Approaches.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Predicting the correct dose in children: Role of computational Pediatric Physiological-based pharmacokinetics modeling tools.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2023Review
- Comparison between physiologically based pharmacokinetic and population pharmacokinetic modelling to select paediatric doses of gepotidacin in plague.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo develop physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) and population pharmacokinetic (PopPK) models to predict effective doses of gepotidacin in paediatrics for the treatment of pneumonic plague (Yersinia pestis).
methodsA gepotidacin PBPK model was constructed using a population-based absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion simulator, Simcyp®, with physicochemical and in vitro data, optimized with clinical data from a dose-escalation intravenous (IV) study and a human mass balance study. A PopPK model was developed with pooled PK data from phase 1 studies with IV gepotidacin in healthy adults.
resultsFor both the PopPK and PBPK models, body weight was found to be a key covariate affecting gepotidacin clearance. With PBPK, ~90% of the predicted PK for paediatrics fell between the 5th and 95th percentiles of adult values except for subjects weighing ≤5 kg. PopPK-simulated paediatric means for C
conclusionsBoth PBPK and PopPK approaches can reasonably predict gepotidacin exposures in children.
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.