ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2026
A comparison of pharmacometric software programs for atezolizumab population pharmacokinetic simulation.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe compare our experience with three pharmacometric modeling workflows for simulating alternative dosing regimens of atezolizumab: (1) the gold-standard, NONMEM software used in combination with R, (2) the R-based package RxODE, and (3) the recently developed Julia-based software Pumas, discussing the advantages and limitations of each.
methodsOur prior work demonstrated that an extended-interval dosing regimen (840 mg q6w) following two standard loading doses maintained efficacy while having a nonsignificant exposure-response relationship with adverse events. In the original analysis, the virtual population was generated in R, simulations performed using NONMEM, and data analysis and visualization then conducted in R. In the present study, we perform the full workflow within R using RxODE for simulation and also recreate this workflow using Pumas in Julia. Pharmacokinetic parameters and graphical output, as well as the processing speed for each method were compared.
resultsAll three approaches generated comparable virtual populations, key exposure metrics of CMAX, CMIN, and Weekly AUC, and data visualizations of the simulated serum concentrations. However, there were differences in how quickly each software simulated the entire seven cycle dataset, with Pumas simulating 33,273 obs/second, NONMEM 4,782 obs/sec, and RxODE 251 obs/sec. Due to this large difference, the dataset was broken into individual cycles, where NONMEM and RxODE performed comparably at 2041-3337 obs/sec, while Pumas simulated 48,122-69,168 obs/sec.
conclusionAll three software produced comparable results. Ultimately, the choice should be based on the modeler’s specific needs and limitations.
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.