Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9803979›Full record

ReviewBritish journal of clinical pharmacology1998

Expanding clinical applications of population pharmacodynamic modelling.

C Minto, T Schnider

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Model-based drug development: the road to quantitative pharmacology.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2006
    Article
  15. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling: history and perspectives.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2006
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

C MintoRoyal North Shore Hospital, University of Sydney, Australia.
T Schnider

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Population pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics is the study of the variability in drug concentration or pharmacological effect between individuals when standard dosage regimens are administered. We provide an overview of pharmacokinetic models, pharmacodynamic models, population models and residual error models. We outline how population modelling approaches seek to explain interpatient variability with covariate analysis, and, in some approaches, to characterize the unexplained interindividual variability. The interpretation of the results of population modelling approaches is facilitated by shifting the emphasis from the perspective of the modeller to the perspective of the clinician. Both the explained and unexplained interpatient variability should be presented in terms of their impact on the dose-response relationship. Clinically relevant questions relating to the explained and unexplained variability in the population can be posed to the model, and confidence intervals can be obtained for the fraction of the population that is estimated to fall within a specific therapeutic range given a certain dosing regimen. Such forecasting can be used to develop optimal initial dosing guidelines. The development of population models (with random effects) permits the application of Bayes's formula to obtain improved estimates of an individual's pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters in the light of observed responses. An important challenge to clinical pharmacology is to identify the drugs that might benefit from such adaptive-control-with-feedback dosing strategies. Drugs used for life threatening diseases with a proven pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationship, a small therapeutic range, large interindividual variability, small interoccasion variability and severe adverse effects are likely to be good candidates. Rapidly evolving changes in health care economics and consumer expectations make it unlikely that traditional drug development approaches will succeed in the future. A shift away from the narrow focus on rejecting the null hypothesis towards a broader focus on seeking to understand the factors that influence the dose-response relationship--together with the development of the next generation of software based on population models--should permit a more efficient and rational drug development programme.

Indexed as

IndividualityModels, BiologicalPharmacokineticsPharmacologyDose-Response Relationship, DrugHumansMathematics

Identifiers

PMID9803979
PMCPMC1874157

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.