A Randomized, Double-Blind, Crossover Study on the Pharmacokinetics of a Novel Formulation of CoQ<sub>10</sub>With Pyridoxal 5′-Phosphate and Phosphatidyl Choline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pharmacokinetics of a single 30-mg dose of a novel enteric-coated coenzyme Q10 (CoQ(10)) formulation with pyridoxal 5'-phosphate and phosphatidyl choline (CoQ(10)-P5P-PC) was investigated against two comparators CoQ(10) (NPN 02176955) and CoQ(10) (DIN 02231736) in 21 healthy volunteers, with screening CoQ(10) levels of 0.8 ± 0.2 mg/L. A randomized, double-blind, crossover study was designed with a washout period of 2 weeks between each formulation and blood sampled at 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 24, 48 and 72 hr postdose. Significantly, higher plasma concentrations were demonstrated for the CoQ(10) (NPN 02176955) formulation at 6 and 8 hr postdose (p = .010 and p = .042, respectively). There were no significant differences between formulations with respect to the area under the curve, AUC((0-72 hr)), or the maximum plasma concentration (C(max)). Total CoQ(10) (T(max)) reached maximum plasma concentrations at 6.4 ± 2.5 hr after supplementation with CoQ(10) (NPN 02176955), 8.0 ± 9.8 hr with CoQ(10)-P5P-PC, and 9.5 ± 9.3 hr with CoQ(10) (DIN 02231736). The estimated elimination half-life (t(1/2)) was 92.3 hr after a single oral dose of CoQ(10)-P5P-PC, 38.2 hr with CoQ(10) (NPN 02176955), and 80.7 hr with CoQ(10) (DIN 02231736). The results suggest that CoQ(10) is available for a longer time in subjects' administered with CoQ(10)-P5P-PC in comparison with the other two formulations studied. There were no significant differences in adverse events, by severity, causality, or organ system. The CoQ(10)-P5P-PC formulation was found to be superior in the t(1/2), and it may be suggested that fewer doses are required to maintain healthy circulatory CoQ(10) levels.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".