ArticlePharmaceutics2024
A Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) Study to Assess the Adjuvanticity of Three Peptides in an Oral Vaccine.
Article in Pharmaceutics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling and Simulation in Regulatory Review: US FDA CBER Experience and Perspectives.The AAPS journal · 2025Review
- Advancing Liposomal Drug Delivery through Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling.Current drug metabolism · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Following up on the first PBPK model for an oral vaccine built for alpha-tocopherol, three peptides are explored in this article to verify if they could support an oral vaccine formulation as adjuvants using the same PBPK modeling approach. A literature review was conducted to verify what peptides have been used as adjuvants in the last decades, and it was noticed that MDP derivatives have been used, with one of them even being commercially approved and used as an adjuvant when administered intravenously in oncology. The aim of this study was to build optimized models for three MDP peptides (MDP itself, MTP-PE, and murabutide) and to verify if they could act as adjuvants for an oral vaccine. Challenges faced by peptides in an oral delivery system are taken into consideration, and improvements to the formulations to achieve better results are described in a step-wise approach to reach the most-optimized model. Once simulations are performed, results are compared to determine what would be the best peptide to support as an oral adjuvant. According to our results, MTP-PE, the currently approved and commercialized peptide, could have potential to be incorporated into an oral formulation. It would be interesting to proceed with further in vivo experiments to determine the behavior of this peptide when administered orally with a proper formulation to overcome the challenges of oral delivery systems.
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.