Changes in Rosuvastatin Pharmacokinetics During Postnatal Ontogenesis in Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Statin therapy should be considered in children with familial hypercholesterolemia and sustained high LDL-C levels. There are no data on rosuvastatin exposure in patients <6 years and efficacy/safety can only be derived from case reports. Our aim was to examine developmental changes in pharmacokinetics of rosuvastatin in rats in vivo as a basis for clinical development of formulations for patients < 6 years. METHODS: Rosuvastatin pharmacokinetics was examined in rats aged 1, 4, 7, 10, 14, 21, 28, 35 and 42 days (from birth to sexual maturity). After intraperitoneal dose of 5 mg/kg, blood samples to determine serum rosuvastatin levels were taken at 0.5, 3 and 5 hours. Pharmacokinetic parameters (Vd, CL, AUClast, AUC0-∞) were calculated using pharmacokinecic simulations. RESULTS: Both rosuvastatin CL and Vd started to increase systematically between 2 - 3 weeks of age, which was reflected by decreased total drug exposure. The AUC was up to 13 times higher in the age groups ≤14 days compared with the value at 42 days. CONCLUSIONS: Based on interspecies scaling, a dose reduction could be a feasible way, how to develop appropriate dosing schedule and formulations for children aged 2 - 6 years. However, confirmation in clinical development studies will be needed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".