MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

S470 Development and Utilization of a Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Model for Vonoprazan to Assess the Relationship Between Dose, Exposure, and pH Holding Time Ratio

2022· article· en· W4316077039 on OpenAlexaff
Carmelo Scarpignato, Colin W. Howden, Eckhard Leifke, Darcy J. Mulford, Gëzim Lahu, Axel Facius, Richard Hunt

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePharmacodynamicsPharmacokineticsConfidence intervalGastric acidPharmacologyInternal medicinePopulationGastroenterologyStomach

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Vonoprazan, a potassium-competitive acid blocker, suppresses gastric acid secretion rapidly and potently over prolonged periods. Gastric acid suppression is key to the healing and maintenance of erosive esophagitis (EE) and the eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection. The daily fraction of time that gastric pH is >4 (the pH >4 holding time ratio [HTR]) is critical for healing of EE; pH >6 HTR is important for eradication of H. pylori infection. Here, we develop and utilize a pharmacokinetic (PK)/pharmacodynamic (PD) model to investigate the relationship between vonoprazan treatment and intragastric pH HTR. Methods: Data from prior Phase 1 single and multiple dose studies with pH measurements were pooled. An existing population PK model was used to estimate individual model parameters and predict PK profiles for study participants on each day with pH measurements. The area under the concentration-time curve between 0 and 24 hours post-dose (AUC0–24h) was merged with pH HTR PD study data. Three direct link PK/PD models characterizing the relationship between AUC0–24h and HTRs for pH >4, >5, and >6 were then derived. The models were used to simulate pH HTRs with between-subject variability; results were summarized as mean and 80% prediction intervals. Results: Data from 245 participants in five different Phase 1 studies were used to derive the PK/PD model. Demographics: 95.1% male; 50.6% Japanese; 49.4% Western. The estimates and 95% confidence intervals for all model parameters are shown in Table. Simulations showed that vonoprazan 20 mg once-daily (QD) and 20 mg twice-daily (BID) are predicted to give pH >4 HTRs of 89.7% and 98.1%, respectively, by Day 7 (Figure). HTRs for pH >6 were 53.1% for vonoprazan 20 mg QD and 75.3% for BID. Conclusion: These results indicate that vonoprazan provides high, dose-dependent pH HTRs and, therefore, consistent, dose-dependent control of 24-hour intragastric acidity. These pH HTRs may explain the high EE healing rates and, when combined with antimicrobials, H. pylori eradication rates seen with vonoprazan in clinical trials.Figure 1.: Predicted Mean and 80% Prediction Interval pH Holding Time Ratio at Days 0 (pre-treatment), 1, 7 and 14. BID, twice daily; QD, once daily. Table 1. - Estimates and 95% CIs for Model Parameters Parameter Role pH >4 Estimate (95% CI) pH >5 Estimate (95% CI) pH >6 Estimate (95% CI) E0 TV (logit) -2.74 (3.77%)(-2.84 to -2.64) -3.18 (1.56%)(-3.27 to -3.09) -3.48 (0.514%)(-3.54 to -3.42) Asian-effect (%) -12.8 (-17.3 to -8.41) -9.23 (-12.7 to -5.74) -5.63 (-8.11 to -3.15) BSV 0.388 (0.310 to 0.465) 0.276 (0.192 to 0.361) 3.16e-05 (-0.286 to 0.286) EC50 TV (ng/mL) 48.2 (43.9 to 52.4) 58.8 (53.1 to 64.5) 99.5 (86.2 to 113) gamma 1.39 (1.20 to 1.58) 1.34 (1.17 to 1.52) 1.62 (1.30 to 1.94) Weight effect (1/kg) 1.50 (0.803 to 2.19) 1.81 (1.19 to 2.44) - BSV 0.319 (0.259 to 0.379) 0.310 (0.252 to 0.368) 0.235 (0.102 to 0.368) Emax TV (logit) 4.80 (102%)(4.53 to 5.07) 4.83 (102%)(4.44 to 5.23) 2.17 (91.9%)(1.65 to 2.70) Weight effect (1/kg) - - -0.0187 (-0.0265 to -0.0108) BSV 1e-04 (6.80e-05 to 0.000132) 1e-04 (5.42e-05 to 0.000146) 0.781 (0.505 to 1.06) ET50 TV (days) 0.432 (0.384 to 0.481) 0.427 (0.369 to 0.485) 0.348 (0.274 to 0.422) delta 1 (fixed) 1 (fixed) 1 (fixed) RUV add.err. (logit) 0.528 (0.475 to 0.580) 0.545 (0.493 to 0.596) 0.498 (0.457 to 0.539) E0 and Emax were estimated on the logit-scale as the pH holding time ratios were logit-transformed; back-transformed estimates on the original percent scale are given for these parameters in round brackets. add.err., additive error; BSV, between subject variability; CI, confidence interval; E0, baseline effect; Emax, theoretical maximum effect achieved at infinite exposure and time; EC50, exposure (AUC) required to achieve 50% of maximum effect (Emax); ET50, time required to achieve 50% of maximum effect; RUV, residual unexplained variability; TV, typical value.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology→Same topicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments→French-language works237,207→