Introduction
Microdosing is an approach to early drug development where exploratory pharmacokinetic data are acquired in humans using inherently safe sub-pharmacologic doses of drug. The first publication of microdose data was 10 years ago and this review comprehensively explores the microdose concept from conception, over the past decade, up until the current date.
Areas covered
The authors define and distinguish the concept of microdosing from similar approaches. The authors review the ability of microdosing to provide exploratory pharmacokinetics (concentration-time data) but exclude microdosing using positron emission tomography. The article provides a comprehensive review of data within the peer-reviewed literature as well as the latest applications and a look into the future, towards where microdosing may be headed.
Expert opinion
Evidence so far suggests that microdosing may be a better predictive tool of human pharmacokinetics than alternative methods and combination with physiologically based modelling may lead to much more reliable predictions in the future. The concept has also been applied to drug-drug interactions, polymorphism and assessing drug concentrations over time at its site of action. Microdosing may yet have more to offer in unanticipated directions and provide benefits that have not been fully realised to date.
Acute improvement in depression is associated with cognitive improvement as measured by the SLT and DSST. Prospective studies are warranted to study the effects of potential differences among antidepressant therapies on long-term cognitive outcomes in geriatric depression.
Sertraline augmentation was well-tolerated in this sample of AD outpatients. In addition, post hoc analyses demonstrated a modest but statistically significant advantage of sertraline over placebo augmentation in mixed model analyses and a clinically and statistically significant advantage in a subgroup of patients with moderate-to-severe behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia.
Background: The comparative efficacy of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotoninnorepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) was recently debated. Meta-analyses, based mainly on fluoxetine comparator data, suggest that the SNRI venlafaxine has superior efficacy to SSRIs in treatment of major depression. Objective: To compare quality of life (QOL), efficacy, safety, and tolerability associated with sertraline and venlafaxine extended release (XR) for treatment of DSM-IV major depression. Method: This was an 8-week, double-blind, randomized study of sertraline (50-150 mg/day) versus venlafaxine XR (75-225 mg/day), followed by a 2-week taper period. Subjects were recruited from 7 sites in Turkey and 6 sites in Australia between October 2002 and July 2003. The primary outcome measure was the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire. Secondary outcome measures included measures of depression (including response and remission), anxiety, pain, safety (e.g., blood pressure), and tolerability (e.g., discontinuation symptoms). Results: A total of 163 subjects received study treatment (women, 69%; mean age, 37.0 [SD = 12.9] years). No significant differences in QOL or efficacy were noted between treatments on the primary or secondary endpoints for the total study population or the anxious depression and severe depression subgroups. A priori analyses of symptoms associated with treatment discontinuation demonstrated no difference between treatment groups. However, in post hoc analyses, sertraline was associated with less burden of moderate to severe discontinuation symptoms. Venlafaxine XR was associated with a relative increase in mean blood pressure (supine diastolic blood pressure,-4.4 mm Hg difference at week 8/last observation carried forward). Conclusion: Sertraline and venlafaxine XR demonstrated comparable effects on QOL and efficacy in treatment of major depression, although sertraline may be associated with a lower symptom burden during treatment discontinuation and a reduced risk of blood pressure increase.
BackgroundA public that is an informed partner in clinical research is important for ethical, methodological, and operational reasons. There are indications that the public is unaware or misinformed, and not sufficiently engaged in clinical research but studies on the topic are lacking. PARTAKE – Public Awareness of Research for Therapeutic Advancements through Knowledge and Empowerment is a program aimed at increasing public awareness and partnership in clinical research. The PARTAKE Survey is a component of the program.ObjectiveTo study public knowledge and perceptions of clinical research.MethodsA 40-item questionnaire combining multiple-choice and open-ended questions was administered to 175 English- or Hindi-speaking individuals in 8 public locations representing various socioeconomic strata in New Delhi, India.ResultsInterviewees were 18–84 old (mean: 39.6, SD±16.6), 23.6% female, 68.6% employed, 7.3% illiterate, 26.3% had heard of research, 2.9% had participated and 58.9% expressed willingness to participate in clinical research. The following perceptions were reported (% true/% false/% not aware): ‘research benefits society’ (94.1%/3.5%/2.3%), ‘the government protects against unethical clinical research’ (56.7%/26.3%/16.9%), ‘research hospitals provide better care’ (67.2%/8.7%/23.9%), ‘confidentiality is adequately protected’ (54.1%/12.3%/33.5%), ‘participation in research is voluntary’ (85.3%/5.8%/8.7%); ‘participants treated like ‘guinea pigs’’ (20.7%/53.2%/26.0%), and ‘compensation for participation is adequate’ (24.7%/12.9%/62.3%).ConclusionsResults suggest the Indian public is aware of some key features of clinical research (e.g., purpose, value, voluntary nature of participation), and supports clinical research in general but is unaware of other key features (e.g., compensation, confidentiality, protection of human participants) and exhibits some distrust in the conduct and reporting of clinical trials. Larger, cross-cultural surveys are required to inform educational programs addressing these issues.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.