ReviewClinical and translational science2025
New Insights Into Hepatic Impairment (HI) Trials.
Review in Clinical and translational science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hepatic impairment (HI) trials are traditionally part of the clinical pharmacology development to assess the need for dose adaptation in people with impaired metabolic capacity due to their diseased liver. This review aimed at looking into the data from dedicated HI studies, cluster these data into various categories and connect the effect by HI with reported pharmacokinetics (PK) properties in order to identify patterns that may allow waiver, extrapolations, or adapted HI study designs. Based on a ratio ≥ 2 or ≤ 0.5 in AUC or Cmax between hepatically impaired participants/healthy controls these were considered "positive" or "negative". In case of more than one HI severity stratum per compound included in the HI trial, the comparison of the AUC ratios for mild, moderate, or severe HI were used to investigate the increase across HI categories. For the in total 436 hits, relevant PK information could be retrieved for 273 compounds of which 199 were categorized negative, 69 positive ups and 5 positive downs. Fourteen out of 69 compounds demonstrated a steep increase in the AUC ratios from mild to severe HI. Compounds demonstrating a steep increase typically had a high plasma protein binding of > 95%, high volume of distribution, lower absolute bioavailability, minor elimination via the kidneys, were predominantly metabolized by CYP3A4 or CYP2D6 and the majority of these compounds were substrates of OATP1B1. While for compounds with steep increase studies in all severity strata may be warranted they may also offer the potential to estimate the appropriate doses in an HI trial. On the other hand, for compounds with slow or no increase across HI severity strata, reduced HI trials may be justified, e.g. only testing PK in moderate HI.
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.