ArticleJournal of clinical and translational research2022
A comparison of different methods for the first-in-pediatric dose selection.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational research, 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.
- Comparisons of fentanyl and sufentanil on recovery time after inguinal hernia repair in children: a randomized clinical trial.BMC surgery · 2024Trial
- Population pharmacokinetics and dose rationale for aciclovir in term and pre-term neonates with herpes.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2024Article
- Off-Label Prescribing in Pediatric Population-Literature Review for 2012-2022.Pharmaceutics · 2023Review
- Dose rationale for gabapentin and tramadol in pediatric patients with chronic pain.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2023Article
- Application of Allometric Scaling and Salisbury Rule for the Prediction of Antimalarial Drugs for First-in-Pediatric Dose Selection.European journal of drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aim: To conduct a pediatric clinical trial, it is important to optimize pediatric dose as accurately as possible. This is mainly because due to ethical reasons, children cannot be given several doses to evaluate pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy of a drug. Methods: In this study, several simple methods to project a first-in-pediatric dose to initiate a clinical trial were evaluated. These methods were as follows:(1) Weight-based pediatric dose prediction (allometric scaling), (2) Salisbury rule (weight-based method), and (3) pediatric dose prediction based on predicted clearance. These methods were compared with the dose given to children in clinical practice. The methods were also compared with whole-body physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model ( Results: There were 27 drugs with 113 observations (different age groups from preterm neonates to adolescents). At least, ≤30% prediction error in pediatric dose projection was noted for more than 70% observations. The predictive performance of all the proposed methods was comparable with the whole-body PBPK. Conclusions: The proposed methods are simple and accurate and can be developed on a spreadsheet in a very short period of time. Relevance for Patients: The study provides an estimate of first-in-pediatric dose by simple methods to initiate pediatric clinical trials. Especially, Salisbury rule is based on body weight and is very simple and works fairly well in children >30 kg body weight and can be even used in clinical settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36518546PMC9741938What 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.