Multiple‐dose pharmacokinetics of cenerimod and the effect of charcoal on its elimination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cenerimod is a sphingosine‐1‐phosphate receptor 1 modulator that reduces tissue availability of circulating lymphocytes. The compound is in Phase 3 development for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus. Its pharmacokinetic properties are characterized by slow absorption and multiphasic elimination with a long terminal half‐life (t½), potentially caused by enterohepatic circulation (EHC). In this trial in healthy participants, oral cenerimod 0.5 and 4 mg once daily was administered for 50 days, followed by oral administration of activated charcoal (ie, 50 mg every 12 h for 11 days, starting 24 h after the last cenerimod dose), to investigate the potential EHC of cenerimod and assess whether elimination of cenerimod can be accelerated. The multiple‐dose pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety, and tolerability of cenerimod were also evaluated. For both doses, peak plasma concentrations were reached 6 and 7 h after dosing. Cenerimod accumulated approximately eightfold and (near) steady‐state conditions were reached after 50 doses, resembling clinically meaningful exposure to cenerimod. The t½ following 0.5 and 4 mg of cenerimod was 767 and 799 h (ie, 32 and 33 days) and 720 and 780 h (ie, 30 and 33 days) with or without administration of charcoal, respectively, indicating no statistically significant difference. Therefore, charcoal did not accelerate cenerimod elimination suggesting that there is no EHC of cenerimod. A reversible, dose‐dependent decrease in total lymphocyte count was observed. No safety concerns were identified; administration of charcoal was well tolerated.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
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".