Formulation Dependent Pharmacokinetics–Does the Dosage Form Matter for Nifedipine?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This was an open-label, randomized, 3-way crossover study that compared in 25 healthy male subjects, the pharmacokinetics of a single 60-mg dose of nifedipine GITS tablet versus (1) 20-mg doses of nifedipine prolonged action tablets given q12h for a total of two doses and (2) 2 x 10 mg doses of nifedipine capsules given q8h for a total of three doses. Following capsule administration, there was a rapid rise in plasma concentration of drug achieving a peak concentration of 196(35) ng/mL (mean and coefficient of variation) within 0.7 (105) hours and an AUC(infinity) of 973(39) ng.hr/mL. After nifedipine PA there was also a rapid rise in plasma concentration of drug achieving a Cmax of 85.5 (36) ng/mL with a tmax of 1.7(58) hours and an AUC(infinity) of 879(46) ng.hr/mL. For the nifedipine GITS formulation, there was a lag in the plasma concentration time profile for approximately 2 to 3 hours, then it rose gradually achieving a Cmax of of 686(54) 30.5(63) ng/mL with a tmax of 15.0(50) hours and an AUC(infinity) ng.hr/mL. The AUC(infinity) and Cmax were significantly (P = 0.0001) greater in the capsule and PA formulations than for the GITS; however, the tmax for the GITS formulation was significantly (P = 0.001) longer than for the other formulations. This study suggests marked formulation-dependent pharmacokinetics, which may have important clinical implications.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".