MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4415229655 · doi:10.1007/s40261-025-01474-3

Comparative Bioavailability of Methylphenidate Powder for Prolonged-Release Oral Suspension and Methylphenidate Prolonged-Release Chewable Tablets versus Methylphenidate Immediate-Release Tablets: Phase 1, Single-Dose, Randomised, Crossover Studies in Healthy Adults

2025· article· en· W4415229655 sur OpenAlexaff
Josep Antoni Ramos‐Quiroga, Marta Forcadell Ferré, Alex Schneider-Pérez, Mohammed Bouhajib

Notice bibliographique

RevueClinical Drug Investigation · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Établissements canadiensPharma Medica Research (Canada)
Organismes subventionnairesNeuraxpharm
Mots-clésBioequivalenceMethylphenidateCrossover studyBioavailabilitySuspension (topology)DrugDosage form

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Various oral methylphenidate formulations are available to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, but unmet needs still exist, particularly for individuals with swallowing difficulties or those requiring more flexible dosing options. Two phase 1 studies evaluated the comparative bioavailability and safety/tolerability of two prolonged-release (PR) methylphenidate formulations, an oral suspension and a chewable tablet, compared with an established immediate-release (IR) oral tablet formulation. Healthy volunteers were randomised to receive a single dose of methylphenidate PR oral suspension (total dose 60 mg; study 1) or chewable tablet (total dose 40 mg; study 2) and methylphenidate IR tablets (total dose 60 mg in study 1 and 40 mg in study 2) in a crossover manner, with a 7-day washout between treatment periods. Blood samples were collected over the 24-h post-administration period. Comparative bioavailability was defined as the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the relative mean plasma d-methylphenidate area under the plasma concentration–time curve from zero to last measurable concentration (AUClast) of methylphenidate PR formulation to methylphenidate IR being between 80 and 125%. Adverse events (AEs) were documented. In total, 24 individuals (mean age 39–42 years, approximately 50% male) were randomised in each study, of whom 23 received methylphenidate PR oral suspension in study 1 and 23 received methylphenidate PR chewable tablets in study 2; 24 received methylphenidate IR tablets in each study. The relative mean plasma d-methylphenidate AUClast ratios for methylphenidate PR formulation to methylphenidate IR tablets had 90% CIs of 82.30–87.18% in study 1 and 90.01–97.52% in study 2. Treatment-emergent AEs were reported in 26% and 22% of participants receiving the oral suspension and chewable tablets, respectively (versus 50% and 33% of those receiving the IR tablets in the respective studies). These AEs were typical of orally administered methylphenidate, mild in severity and, in general, resolved prior to study end. The methylphenidate PR oral suspension and chewable tablet formulations are bioequivalent in terms of the total extent of exposure (AUClast) to methylphenidate IR tablets and are tolerable in healthy adults. Methylphenidate is a drug often used to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Various products (formulations) containing methylphenidate are available for doctors to prescribe, but it would be useful for additional formulations to be available to allow treatment to be more precisely tailored for each patient. In particular, formulations that release methylphenidate slowly into the bloodstream (‘prolonged-release’ [PR] formulations) are more effective at controlling symptoms over the course of each day than those that release methylphenidate more quickly (‘immediate-release’ [IR] formulations). Two studies were conducted to assess how two PR formulations of methylphenidate—a powder mixed with water (oral suspension) and a chewable tablet—compared with a commonly prescribed IR oral tablet formulation of methylphenidate in terms of the concentration of the drug achieved in the blood (termed ‘exposure’ to methylphenidate) and safety. In total, 24 healthy adults participated in each study. The studies were divided into two parts—initially, participants received either the PR formulation or the IR formulation; 7 days later, they received whichever formulation they had not received in the first part of the study. Over the 24 h, after each treatment was received, blood samples were taken to determine methylphenidate concentrations, and adverse effects were assessed. Exposure to methylphenidate was similar with each PR formulation versus the IR formulation. Further, the PR formulations were well-tolerated by participants, having adverse effects similar to those previously reported for methylphenidate. Therefore, the methylphenidate PR oral suspension and chewable tablet formulations can be considered important additions to the treatment options available for ADHD.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai randomisé · Signal consensuel: Essai randomisé
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,052
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,016
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,002
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,181
Tête enseignante GPT0,462
Écart entre enseignants0,282 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeEssai randomisé
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueClinical Drug InvestigationMême sujetAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderTravaux en français237 207