Observational studyCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2026
External Evaluation of Population Pharmacokinetic Models of Cabotegravir, During Its Oral and Intramuscular Administration in HIV-Infected Patients.
Observational study in CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology, 2026. 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.
- External Evaluation of Population Pharmacokinetic Models of Cabotegravir, During Its Oral and Intramuscular Administration in HIV-Infected Patients.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cabotegravir (CAB), combined with rilpivirine, is the first long-acting injectable therapy approved for HIV-1 maintenance treatment. While adherence and patient satisfaction have been improved, pharmacokinetic (PK) variability remains a concern. Two population PK models have been developed: one based on data from phase I-III trials and the other on routine clinical data. However, neither model has undergone thorough external evaluation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the predictive performance of these models using an independent prospective dataset to evaluate their suitability to support model-informed precision dosing (MIPD). External validation was performed using data from the French observational and multicenter (n = 14) ANRS0255 CARLAPOP study (736 HIV-infected patients, representing 2192 concentrations). Models were implemented using MONOLIX software and evaluated using goodness-of-fit, prediction-based, and simulation-based diagnostics. For Han's model, regarding plasma concentrations following intramuscular administration, Median Prediction Error (MDPE) was -1.2% (PRED) and -4.4% (IPRED); Median Absolute Prediction Error (MDAPE) was 36.6% (PRED) and 17.9% (IPRED). For Thoueille's model, MDPE was -24.2% (PRED) and -9.2% (IPRED); MDAPE was 39.0% (PRED) and 15.3% (IPRED). However, < 70% of predictions were within a 20% error margin with both models. Graphical analyses of Thoueille's model showed systemic bias, particularly in women, nonsmokers, and patients with higher body mass index. Therefore, neither model was considered reliable enough for MIPD application in our population. Although Han et al.'s model demonstrated higher predictive performances, further improvements are required before it can be reliably applied for MIPD in daily routine.
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.