Nimodipine Pharmacokinetic Variability in Various Patient Populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nimodipine has been shown to improve outcomes following aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Guidelines recommend that all patients receive a fixed dose of oral nimodipine for 21 days. However, pharmacokinetic studies have suggested variability of nimodipine pharmacokinetics in subarachnoid hemorrhage and in other patient populations. The clinical relevance of such variability is unknown. Therefore, the objective of the present review is, first, to conduct a literature review and summarize nimodipine pharmacokinetic data and sources of variability in various patient groups. Second, to determine if there is any evidence reporting an association between nimodipine exposure and clinical outcomes in patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage. A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE. The following keywords were used: ("nimodipine" OR "nymalize" OR "nimotop") AND ("pharmacokinetic*", OR "PK"). The search results were limited to English language and human studies. A large interpatient variability in nimodipine pharmacokinetics has been reported. Patient-specific factors that had an influence on pharmacokinetic parameters are age, comorbidities, variabilities in metabolism due to genetic polymorphism and co-administered medications, as well as nimodipine administration technique. The association between nimodipine exposure and clinical outcomes remains unclear and data available are too scarce to reach a firm conclusion. Here, we present a narrative review with a systematic literature search discussing nimodipine pharmacokinetic variability in various patient populations. It is not clear if minimal or lack of systemic exposure to nimodipine denies its benefit and contributes to worsening outcomes in patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage. Further studies are needed to determine if such an association exists.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".