ArticlePharmacology research & perspectives2026
Differential Impact of Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Variability on Response to Combination Therapy.
Article in Pharmacology research & perspectives, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Interindividual variability (IIV) in drug response complicates both fixed-dose design and individualized therapy. Understanding how pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) processes jointly shape this variability is essential, particularly in combination therapy, where multiple interacting pathways influence outcomes. This study employed a unified PK-Signal-Reaction-Stimulus-Response (PK-SRSR) modeling framework to quantify and compare the impact of IIV in PK and PD parameters under monotherapy and combination therapy. Monte Carlo simulations were used to generate response distributions across hypothetical physiological conditions, while Sobol variance-based sensitivity analysis decomposed total response variability into contributions from individual parameters (FOI) and their interactions (TOI). Results showed that PD variability, especially that related to system-level modulatory processes (S0A, S0B, βA, βB, and βiA), exerted a greater influence on overall response than drug effect level PD (SmaxA, SmaxB, KA, and KB) variability and PK (CLA/F and CLB/F) variability. Variability in response was most sensitive to S0B, βB (FOI > 34%, TOI > 32%) during monotherapy and SmaxA (FOI > 25%, TOI > 27%), SmaxB (FOI > 17%, TOI > 24%), and βB (FOI > 32%, TOI > 34%) during combination therapy. At 45% CV in all parameters, variability in response was lower during combination therapy (CV = 44%, 42%, and 33%) than during monotherapy (CV = 59%, 52%, and 53%) for additive, antagonistic, and synergistic PD interactions, respectively. Introducing a second drug targeting a modulatory pathway reduced response variability by stabilizing regulatory mechanisms, explaining previous observations in which patients achieve therapeutic response despite suboptimal plasma concentrations during combination therapy. Coordinated dose optimization of all agents, supported by response-guided, system-aware strategies, may yield more robust, consistent, and individualized treatment outcomes than traditional PK-guided dosing approaches.
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.