Who Needs Individual Bioequivalence Studies for Narrow Therapeutic Index Drugs? A Case for Warfarin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Warfarin is, among drugs, considered to have a narrow therapeutic index for which individual bioequivalence has been suggested. To establish the propriety of "switching," an individual bioequivalence study involving a replicate-design study and three "switchings" in healthy subjects was undertaken using the U.S.-brand warfarin sodium tablet and a generic product. A randomized, single-center, open-label, single-dose, four-way crossover replicate bioequivalence study was performed in 24 healthy male volunteers in which each subject received the same 5 mg warfarin test and reference tablets twice on different occasions under fasting conditions. Concentrations of warfarin in plasma were measured by a validated specific HPLC method. The individual pharmacokinetic parameters obtained with test and reference products were compared using pooled data and Liu's method. Bioequivalence was shown with both average and individual bioequivalence methods. The individual bioequivalence assessment did not show a subject-by-formulation interaction, nor did it add value to the bioequivalence assessment of warfarin.
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 | 0.012 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".