Comparison of single-dose and multiple-dose pharmacokinetics between two formulations of hydrocodone bitartrate/acetaminophen: immediate-release versus biphasic immediate- release/extended release
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the single-dose and steady-state pharmacokinetics (PK) of biphasic immediate-release (IR)/extended-release (ER) hydrocodone bitartrate (HB)/acetaminophen (APAP) and IR HB/APAP. SETTING: The study was conducted in a contract research center. PARTICIPANTS: The study included healthy adults. INTERVENTIONS: In a three-way crossover study, Study 1, participants received the following treatments: (A1) a single dose of IR/ER HB/APAP 7.5/325 mg one tablet, followed by one tablet every 12 hours (q12h); (B1) a single dose of IR/ER HB/APAP 7.5/325 mg two tablets, followed by two tablets q12h; (C1) a single dose of IR HB/APAP 7.5/325 mg two tablets (one tablet at hours 0 and 6), followed by one tablet q6h. In a two-way crossover study, Study 2, participants received the following treatments: (A2) an initial dose of IR/ER HB/APAP 7.5/325 mg three tablets, followed by two tablets q12h; (B2) three doses of IR HB/APAP 7.5/325 mg one tablet q4h, followed by one tablet q6h. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: PK values were compared, and adverse events were assessed. RESULTS: Single-dose and steady-state area under the concentration-time curves for hydrocodone and APAP were similar for IR/ER and IR HB/APAP; the steady-state peak plasma concentrations (C max) at steady state were also similar, but single-dose C max for hydrocodone was lower for IR/ER HB/APAP. For most PK parameters, 90% confidence intervals for geometric least squares mean ratios were not meaningfully different (80%-125%). Steady state was achieved in 2-3 days for IR/ER HB/APAP and in 2 days for IR HB/APAP. Median time to C max was longer for IR/ER HB/APAP versus IR HB/APAP (P,0.05). Adverse events were similar across treatments. CONCLUSION: PK outcomes and tolerability were similar for IR/ER HB/APAP and IR HB/APAP.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".