Pharmacokinetics and Safety of a Novel Oral Liquid Formulation of 13-cis Retinoic Acid in Children with Neuroblastoma: A Randomized Crossover Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: 13-cis-retinoic acid (13-CRA) is a key component of neuroblastoma treatment protocols. This randomized crossover study compares the pharmacokinetics (PK), safety and palatability of a novel oral liquid formulation to the current method of extracting 13-CRA from capsules. (2) Methods: Pharmacokinetics was evaluated in two consecutive treatment cycles. Patients were randomized to receive either liquid or capsule formulation on cycle 1 and then crossed over to the alternative formulation on cycle 2. The daily dose was 200 mg/m2, reduced to 160 mg/m2 in patients with weight ≤ 12 kg. (3) Results: A total of 20 children, median (range) age 4.3 (1–11.6) y were recruited. Pharmacokinetic data were pooled and a population model describing the disposition of 13-CRA and 4-oxo-13-CRA was developed. Bioavailability of the liquid formulation was estimated to be 65% higher (95% CI; 51–79%) than the extracted capsule. CmaxSS and AUC(0-12)SS estimates were also significantly higher; mean (95% CI) differences were 489 (144–835) ng/mL and 3933 (2020–5846) ng/mL·h, respectively (p < 0.01). There were no significant differences in reported adverse effects. Parents found dosing considerably easier with liquid formulation. (4) Conclusions: The pharmacokinetics, safety and palatability of a new liquid formulation of 13-CRA compares favorably to 13-CRA extracted from capsules. Clinical Trial Registration: clinicaltrial.gov NCT03291080.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".