SynthesisThe AAPS journal2025
Matching in Organ Impairment Studies: A Systematic Review of Accepted Methodologies.
Synthesis in The AAPS journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Although the use of demographic matching in organ impairment studies is recommended to exclude the confounding effect of demographics on the pharmacokinetic (PK) study results, very little guidance exists on the practical implementation of this approach. Individual matching (IM) as well as several strategies for group matching (GM) have been described in literature. We conducted a systematic review, including 170 renal (RI) and 173 hepatic impairment (HI) studies completed in the last 25 years and characterized used matching methodologies and selected matching criteria. In RI, GM appears more common (70%), while in HI IM was preferred (55%). Age, body weight or body mass index (BMI), and sex were the most commonly used matching criteria, with the most common acceptance margins of ± 10 years for age, ± 10-20% for body weight, and ± 15-20% for BMI, irrespective of matching method used. While IM required notably more subjects in the control group, we did not find a significant effect of various matching strategies on study duration or recruitment between different matching strategies. No matching was used in most of the studies conducted in the target patient population with organ impairment, as opposed to the studies conducted in general organ impairment population without the target indication. Based on the results of this review, we proposed a framework for selection of matching strategy, with IM being a recommended matching method in most cases and GM being suitable for compounds that have well-characterized impact of demographic characteristics on PK and a low between-subject variability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41136722What 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.