ArticleCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2022
A modeling-based proposal for safe and efficacious reintroduction of bedaquiline after dose interruption: A population pharmacokinetics study.
Article in CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology, 2022. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bedaquiline reloading strategies following interruptions during daily dosing.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2026Article
- Population pharmacokinetics of TBAJ-587 and its main metabolites-Evaluation of different loading dose strategies and early dose selection.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- The Kinetics of Bedaquiline Diffusion in Tuberculous Cavities Open a Window for the Emergence of Resistance.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2025Article
- A modeling-based proposal for safe and efficacious reintroduction of bedaquiline after dose interruption: A population pharmacokinetics study.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2022Article
- Quantitative approaches to drug safety: The 2022 PSP special issue.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bedaquiline (BDQ) is recommended for treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) for the majority of patients. Given its long terminal half-life and safety concerns, such as QTc-prolongation, re-introducing BDQ after multiple dose interruption is not intuitive and there are currently no existing guidelines. In this simulation-based study, we investigated different loading dose strategies for BDQ re-introduction, taking safety and efficacy into account. Multiple scenarios of time and length of interruption as well as BDQ re-introduction, including no loading dose, 1- and 2-week loading doses (200 mg and 400 mg once daily), were simulated from a previously published population pharmacokinetic (PK) model describing BDQ and its main metabolite M2 PK in patients with MDR-TB. The efficacy target was defined as 95.0% of the average BDQ concentration without dose interruption during standard treatment. Because M2 is the main driver for QTc-prolongation, the safety limit was set to be below the maximal average M2 metabolite concentration in a standard treatment. Simulations suggest that dose interruptions between treatment weeks 3 and 72 (interruption length: 1 to 6 weeks) require a 2-week loading dose of 200 mg once daily in the typical patient. If treatment was interrupted for longer than 8 weeks, a 2-week loading dose (400 mg once daily) was needed to reach the proposed efficacy target, slightly exceeding the safety limit. In conclusion, we here propose a strategy for BDQ re-introduction providing guidance to clinicians for safe and efficacious BDQ dosing.
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.