ArticlePharmaceutics2024
PBPK Modeling of Lamotrigine and Efavirenz during Pregnancy: Implications for Personalized Dosing and Drug-Drug Interaction Management.
Article in Pharmaceutics, 2024. 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.
- PBPK Models for Fetal Drug Exposure: A Critical Assessment of Current Approaches and Regulatory Readiness.Journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Review
- Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modelling of uridine 5'-diphosphoglucorosultransferase (UGT) substrate drugs in pregnant women.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling of Efavirenz Nanoparticles: from Animal Model to Human Extrapolation.ACS omega · 2025Article
- Toward Precision Dosing of Lamotrigine During Pregnancy: Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling and Simulation.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2025Article
- Application of Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling in the Research of Anti-HIV Drugs.Current drug metabolism · 2025Review
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
This study aimed to model the pharmacokinetics of lamotrigine (LTG) and efavirenz (EFV) in pregnant women using physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) and pregnancy-specific PBPK (p-PBPK) models. For lamotrigine, the adult PBPK model demonstrated accurate predictions for pharmacokinetic parameters. Predictions for the area under the curve (AUC) and peak plasma concentration (Cmax) generally agreed well with observed values. During pregnancy, the PBPK model accurately predicted AUC and Cmax with a prediction error (%PE) of less than 25%. The evaluation of the EFV PBPK model revealed mixed results. While the model accurately predicted certain parameters for non-pregnant adults, significant discrepancies were observed in predictions for higher doses (600 vs. 400 mg) and pregnant individuals. The model's performance during pregnancy was poor, indicating the need for further refinement to account for genetic polymorphism. Gender differences also influenced EFV pharmacokinetics, with lower exposure levels in females compared to males. These findings highlight the complexity of modeling EFV, in general, but specifically in pregnant populations, and the importance of validating such models for accurate clinical application. The study highlights the importance of tailoring dosing regimens for pregnant individuals to ensure both safety and efficacy, particularly when using combination therapies with UGT substrate drugs. Although drug-drug interactions between LTG and EFV appear minimal, further research is needed to improve predictive models and enhance their accuracy.
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.