ReviewPharmacology & therapeutics2022
Leveraging modeling and simulation to optimize the therapeutic window for epigenetic modifier drugs.
Review in Pharmacology & therapeutics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stronger together: a cross-SIG perspective on improving drug development.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2025Article
- Post-translational modifications of histone and non-histone proteins in epigenetic regulation and translational applications in alcohol-associated liver disease: Challenges and research opportunities.Pharmacology & therapeutics · 2023Review
- Building an adaptive dose simulation framework to aid dose and schedule selection.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2023Article
- Cell state-directed therapy - epigenetic modulation of gene transcription demonstrated with a quantitative systems pharmacology model of temozolomide.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2023Article
- Management of T-cell malignancies: Bench-to-bedside targeting of epigenetic biology.CA: a cancer journal for cliniciansReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Dysregulated epigenetic processes can lead to altered gene expression and give rise to malignant transformation and tumorigenesis. Epigenetic drugs aim to revert the phenotype of cancer cells to normally functioning cells, and are developed and applied to treat both hematological and solid cancers. Despite this promising therapeutic avenue, the successful development of epigenetic modulators has been challenging. We argue that besides identifying the right responder patient population, the selection of an optimized dosing regimen is equally important. For the majority of epigenetic modulators, hematological adverse effects such as thrombocytopenia, anemia or neutropenia are frequently observed and may limit their therapeutic potential. Therefore, one of the key challenges is to identify a dosing regimen that maximizes drug efficacy and minimizes toxicity. This requires a good understanding of the quantitative relationship between the administered dose, the drug exposure and the magnitude and duration of drug response related to safety and efficacy. With case examples, we highlight how modeling and simulation has been successfully applied to address those questions. As an outlook, we suggest the combination of efficacy and safety prediction models that capture the quantitative, mechanistic relationships governing the balance between their safety and efficacy dynamics. A stepwise approach for its implementation is presented. Utilizing in silico explorations, the impact of dosing regimen on the therapeutic window can be explored. This will serve as a basis to select the most promising dosing regimen that maximizes efficacy while minimizing adverse effects and to increase the probability of success for the given epigenetic drug.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.