The Lidose Hard Capsule Formulation of Fenofibrate is Suprabioavailable Compared to the Nanoparticle Tablet Formulation Under High-fat Fed Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The therapeutic equivalence of multiple registered fenofibrate formulations, several of which are suprabioavailable and therefore marketed at lower dosage strengths than their reference products, is based on the results of bioequivalence studies. Most of these formulations show a higher bioavailability when taken with a high-fat meal. The relative bioavailability of two of these formulations, the 200 mg Lidose hard capsules and the 145 mg nanoparticle tablets, was assessed when taken with a high-fat meal. METHODS: In this single dose, 2-way, randomized, crossover study, 24 healthy subjects received a 200 mg fenofibrate Lidose hard capsule (Test) and a 145 mg nanoparticle tablet (Reference) under high-fat fed conditions. Plasma concentrations of fenofibric acid were measured up to 72 hours by using a validated LC-MS/MS method. RESULTS: The geometric mean ratios (Test/Reference) and the 90% confidence intervals for AUC0-t and Cmax were 1.37 (131.58 - 142.88) and 1.38 (124.60 - 152.93), respectively. The median (range) Tmax- values of fenofibric acid were 4.5 h (3.0 - 8.0 h) and 3.25 h (1.0 - 6.5 h) after administration of the Lidose hard capsule and the nanoparticle tablet, respectively. CONCLUSION: Under high-fat fed conditions the extent of fenofibrate absorption was 37% higher for the 200 mg Lidose hard capsule compared to the 145 mg nanoparticle tablet, which is exactly as expected based on a mg-to-mg weight basis. The results of the present study underline the importance of assessing bioequivalence of fenofibrate formulations under identical fed conditions, and preferentially after a high-fat meal as this condition represents the worst-case scenario. Furthermore, the results of this study demonstrate that the 145 mg nanoparticle tablet is not bioequivalent to the 200 mg Lidose hard capsule when administered under high-fat meal conditions.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".