Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39754528›Full record

ArticleJournal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England)2025

Haloperidol dopamine receptor occupancy and antagonism correspond to delirium agitation scores and EPS risk: A PBPK-PD modeling analysis.

Paul M Burkat

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Paul M BurkatDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0208-2869

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDelirium is a severe neuropsychiatric disorder associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Numerous precipitating factors and etiologies merge into the pathophysiology of this condition which can be marked by agitation and psychosis. Judicious use of antipsychotic medications such as intravenous haloperidol reduces these symptoms and distress in critically ill individuals.

aimsThis study aimed to develop a physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model for the antipsychotic medication haloperidol; estimate plasma and unbound interstitial brain concentrations for repetitive haloperidol administrations used in hyperactive delirium treatment; determine dopamine receptor occupancy and antagonism under these conditions; and correlate these results with Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) scores and the risk of developing extrapyramidal symptoms (EPSs).

methodsThe PBPK model for single and repetitive administrations of peroral and intravenous haloperidol was developed with PK-Sim software. The pharmacodynamic (PD) model for RASS scores with haloperidol unbound interstitial brain concentration passed as the regressor was developed with the MonolixSuite 2021R platform.

resultsPeak haloperidol plasma and unbound interstitial brain concentrations following a single 2 mg intravenous dose are 32 ± 5 nM and 2.4 ± 0.4 nM. With repetitive administrations, dopamine receptor occupancy is 70%-83% and D2

conclusionsHaloperidol dopamine receptor occupancy time course and D2

Indexed as

Antipsychotic AgentsBasal Ganglia DiseasesDeliriumDopamine AntagonistsHaloperidolModels, BiologicalPsychomotor AgitationAdministration, IntravenousAdultBrainHumansMaleReceptors, DopamineAntipsychotic AgentsDopamine AntagonistsHaloperidolReceptors, DopamineAntagonismdeliriumhaloperidoloccupancyRASS

Identifiers

PMID39754528
PMCPMC11843794

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.