Bioequivalence of Sandoz methylphenidate osmotic‐controlled release tablet with Concerta<sup>®</sup> (Janssen‐Cilag)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim was to assess the bioequivalence of Sandoz methylphenidate osmotic-controlled release (OCR) tablets (Sandoz [Methylphenidate[ MPH OCR) with Concerta®, a methylphenidate formulation indicated for the treatment of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Four open-label, randomized, single-dose, two-way crossover bioequivalence studies were conducted in healthy subjects: three fasting studies with 54-, 36- and 18-mg doses of methylphenidate, and one fed study with the 54-mg dose. The d- and l-threo-methylphenidate plasma levels were quantified using liquid chromatographic methods with tandem mass spectrometry (LC MS/MS). Bioequivalence of the formulations was accepted if the 90% geometric confidence intervals of the ratio of least-squares means of Sandoz MPH OCR to Concerta® of ln-transformed area under the curve (AUC0-t ) and C max were within the acceptance range of 80-125%. All studies met the bioequivalence criteria, and 90% geometric confidence intervals for AUC0-t and C max were within the predefined range. All plasma concentration time curves for Sandoz MPH OCR under fasting conditions showed a biphasic profile comparable with Concerta®, confirmed by bioequivalence of the partial metrics AUC0-2h, AUC2-24 h, C max(0-2 h) and C max(2-24 h). Both products were well tolerated and no relevant differences in the safety profiles were observed. It was concluded that Sandoz MPH OCR is bioequivalent to Concerta® in terms of rate and extent of absorption when administered as a single dose of one extended-release tablet of 54, 36, or 18 mg under fasting conditions and at a dose of 54 mg under fed 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".