ArticleClinical pharmacokinetics2026
Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling of Elexacaftor-Tezacaftor-Ivacaftor in Adults and Pediatric People with Cystic Fibrosis: Exploring Brain Exposure and Neuropsychiatric Adverse Events.
Article in Clinical pharmacokinetics, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveElexacaftor-Tezacaftor-Ivacaftor (ETI) has dramatically improved clinical outcomes in cystic fibrosis. However, neuropsychiatric adverse events (NAEs) have been increasingly reported, particularly in pediatric patients. It remains unknown whether these NAEs could be driven by ETI brain exposure. This study aimed to develop a physiologically based pharmacokinetic model of ETI to explore the variability in systemic and central nervous system exposure across age.
methodsWe included all pediatric patients treated between 2022 and 2024, and for whom at least one ETI plasma concentration was available. Demographic, pharmacokinetic, biological, genetic, and NAE data were collected. The physiologically based pharmacokinetic model was developed based on published pharmacokinetic data for both adult and pediatric populations and validated in our population using standard goodness-of-fit diagnostics. The validated model was used to simulate age-related differences in systemic and central nervous system exposure and to compare predicted exposure between children with and without reported NAEs in our cohort.
resultsFifty children were included with a mean age of 6.6 ± 4.4 years, contributing 279 plasma concentrations. Dose-normalized area under the concentration-time curves were two times higher in younger children for all three drugs. Neuropsychiatric adverse events were documented in 38% of patients and were more frequent in children aged under 6 years. The physiologically based pharmacokinetic model adequately described both adult and pediatric populations, with over 95% of predicted area under the concentration-time curves and maximum concentration being within 1.3-fold of their observed values. Simulations revealed that ETI plasma exposure was two-fold to four-fold higher in those aged 2-6 years when compared with adults. Although central nervous system penetration was substantial for ivacaftor and elexacaftor, but minimal for tezacaftor, simulated central nervous system exposure did not differ between children with and without reported NAEs.
conclusionsYounger children have higher dose-normalized exposure. While younger children experience more NAEs in our cohort, plasma and central nervous system exposures appeared similar between groups, suggesting that exposure may not be the only factor driving the NAEs. Further investigations are necessary.
Identifiers
42853366What 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.