Pharmacokinetic Studies in Women of 2 Novel Oral Formulations of Tranexamic Acid Therapy for Heavy Menstrual Bleeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two randomized, open-label clinical studies involving healthy female volunteers aged 18-45 years (study 1, N = 32; study 2, N = 40) are described, which characterize the pharmacokinetics and steady-state dosage regimen performance of 2 novel, modified-release tranexamic acid tablet formulations. The objective of these studies was to identify the optimum product formulation to advance into late-phase clinical trials for heavy menstrual bleeding. For study 1, participants received single 1.3-g doses (2 650-mg tablets) of tranexamic acid modified-immediate-release (MIR) and tranexamic acid delayed-release (DR) formulations under fasting conditions compared with nonfasting conditions (after breakfast). For study 2, participants received tranexamic acid MIR or tranexamic acid DR as a single 1.3-g dose followed by a dosage regimen of 1.3 g every 8 hours for 5 days. Plasma tranexamic acid concentrations reached minimum effective levels (≥5 μg/mL) within 1.5 hours and within 3 hours after a 1.3-g tranexamic acid MIR and tranexamic acid DR dose, respectively. Food did not appreciably influence tranexamic acid MIR pharmacokinetics, whereas a high-fat meal significantly lowered the maximum concentration produced with tranexamic acid DR. Peak systemic exposure and maintenance of plasma tranexamic acid concentrations within the therapeutic range (5-15 μg/mL) were optimally achieved with 1.3 g of the MIR formulation dosed every 8 hours. The MIR and DR formulations were well tolerated. Peak-to-trough steady-state performance of the tranexamic acid MIR 1.3-g product (dosed every 8 hours, or 3 times daily, for up to 5 days) supported its advancement to late-phase clinical trials in women with heavy menstrual bleeding.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".