4.5 Article

Development of a physiologically based pharmacokinetic model for mefloquine and its application alongside a clinical effectiveness model to select an optimal dose for prevention of malaria in young Caucasian children

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
卷 85, 期 1, 页码 100-113

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.13764

关键词

physiologically based pharmacokinetic; pharmacodynamics; tropical diseases; infectious diseases; children; paediatrics

资金

  1. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims To predict the optimal chemoprophylactic dose of mefloquine in infants of 5-10 kg using physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) and clinical effectiveness models. Methods The PBPK model was developed in Simcyp version 14.1 and verified against clinical pharmacokinetic data in adults; the final model, accounting for developmental physiology and enzyme ontogeny was then applied in the paediatric population. The clinical effectiveness model utilized real-world chemoprophylaxis data with stratification of output by age and including infant data from the UK population. Results PBPK simulations in infant populations depend on the assumed fraction of mefloquine metabolized by CYP3A4 (0.47, 0.95) and on the associated CYP3A4 ontogeny (Salem, Upreti). However, all scenarios suggest that a dose of 62.5 mg weekly achieves or exceeds the exposure in adults following a 250 mg weekly dose and results in a minimum plasma concentration of 620 ng ml(-1), which is considered necessary to achieve 95% prophylactic efficacy. The clinical effectiveness model predicts a 96% protective efficacy from mefloquine chemoprophylaxis at 62.5 mg weekly. Conclusions The PBPK and clinical effectiveness models are mutually supportive and suggest a prophylactic dose of 62.5 mg weekly in the Caucasian 5-10 kg infant population travelling to endemic countries. This dual approach offers a novel route to dose selection in a vulnerable population, where clinical trials would be difficult to conduct.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据