↓ Skip to main content

Comparisons of Analysis Methods for Assessment of Pharmacodynamic Interactions Including Design Recommendations

Overview of attention for article published in The AAPS Journal, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
Title
Comparisons of Analysis Methods for Assessment of Pharmacodynamic Interactions Including Design Recommendations
Published in
The AAPS Journal, June 2018
DOI 10.1208/s12248-018-0239-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chunli Chen, Sebastian G. Wicha, Rikard Nordgren, Ulrika S. H. Simonsson

Abstract

Quantitative evaluation of potential pharmacodynamic (PD) interactions is important in tuberculosis drug development in order to optimize Phase 2b drug selection and ultimately to define clinical combination regimens. In this work, we used simulations to (1) evaluate different analysis methods for detecting PD interactions between two hypothetical anti-tubercular drugs in in vitro time-kill experiments, and (2) provide design recommendations for evaluation of PD interactions. The model used for all simulations was the Multistate Tuberculosis Pharmacometric (MTP) model linked to the General Pharmacodynamic Interaction (GPDI) model. Simulated data were re-estimated using the MTP-GPDI model implemented in Bliss Independence or Loewe Additivity, or using a conventional model such as an Empirical Bliss Independence-based model or the Greco model based on Loewe Additivity. The GPDI model correctly characterized different PD interactions (antagonism, synergism, or asymmetric interaction), regardless of the underlying additivity criterion. The commonly used conventional models were not able to characterize asymmetric PD interactions, i.e., concentration-dependent synergism and antagonism. An optimized experimental design was developed that correctly identified interactions in ≥ 94% of the evaluated scenarios using the MTP-GPDI model approach. The MTP-GPDI model approach was proved to provide advantages to other conventional models for assessing PD interactions of anti-tubercular drugs and provides key information for selection of drug combinations for Phase 2b evaluation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 16%
Student > Master 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Student > Postgraduate 2 5%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 16 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 17 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 December 2018.
All research outputs
#17,494,445
of 25,661,882 outputs
Outputs from The AAPS Journal
#1,051
of 1,462 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,360
of 342,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AAPS Journal
#14
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,661,882 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,462 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 342,298 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.