Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Objective: We aimed to develop and evaluate population pharmacokinetic (PopPK) models of atomoxetine incorporating clinically available patient information and to explore model-informed dose selection in Chinese children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Methods: This retrospective single-center study included a model-building dataset of 102 patients (247 concentrations) and a patient-level holdout dataset of 65 patients (65 concentrations collected approximately 2 h post-dose). A one-compartment model with first-order absorption and elimination was developed. Body weight (BW) and alternative representations of CYP2D6 genetic information—rs1065852 genotype, activity score (AS), and predicted phenotype—were evaluated. Monte Carlo simulations evaluated steady-state 2 h post-dose concentrations (C2h) across doses of 0.5–1.4 mg/kg/day; the model-informed dose was the lowest evaluated dose, achieving ≥75% probability of reaching the exploratory C2h threshold of 268 ng/mL. Results: BW affected apparent clearance (CL/F) and volume of distribution, whereas rs1065852 genotype and AS additionally explained CL/F variability. In the holdout dataset, population predictions had limited bias (MdPE, 1.41–3.09%) but modest precision (MdAPE, 33.75–37.83%); CYP2D6-informed models improved selected performance measures. Simulation-derived doses ranged from 1.0 to 1.4 mg/kg/day across subgroups. No evaluated dose achieved the probability of target attainment (PTA) criterion for AS = 2 at any BW, or for the CC+CT and AS = 1.5 subgroups weighing 17–<30 kg. Alternative Ka assumptions changed median C2h by at most 3.99% and PTA by 3.58 percentage points. Conclusions: BW and CYP2D6 genetic information explained part of atomoxetine pharmacokinetic variability and influenced simulated concentration attainment. These model-informed findings are exploratory and require prospective, multicenter validation against efficacy, tolerability, and safety outcomes before clinical implementation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lin et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: