Bioequivalence Study of Two Formulations of Ibandronic Acid 150-mg Film-Coated Tablets in Healthy Volunteers Under Fasting Conditions: A Randomized, Open-Label, Three-Way, Reference-Replicated Crossover Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This bioequivalence study aimed to compare rate and extent of absorption of a generic medicinal product of ibandronic acid 150-mg film-coated tablet versus Bonviva(®). METHODS: This was a single-centre, open-label, randomized, three-way, three-sequence, reference-replicated, crossover bioequivalence study, under fasting conditions. A single oral dose of ibandronic acid as one 150-mg film-coated tablet was administered in each study period. Each washout period lasted 14 days. Blood samples were collected according to a predefined sampling schedule and up to 48.0 hours after administraton in each period. Plasma concentrations of ibandronic acid were measured using a liquid chromatograph-mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry method. Bioequivalence between generic and reference medicinal products is acceptable if the 90 % confidence intervals (CI) of ratio of least-squares means between the test and the reference product of ln-transformed area under the serum concentration-time curve from time zero to time of last measurable concentration (AUC0-t ) is within the 80.00-125.00 % interval. Prospectively, a scaled average bioequivalence approach for maximum serum concentration (C max) was established. RESULTS: 153 healthy volunteers were enrolled and randomized. After the test formulation (T) and first and second Bonviva(®) (R) dosing, the C max was 96.71 ± 90.19 ng/mL, 92.67 ± 91.48 ng/mL and 87.94 ± 60.20 ng/mL and the AUC0-t was 390.83 ± 287.27 ng·h/mL, 388.54 ± 356.76 ng·h/mL and 383.53 ± 246.72, respectively. Ratios of T/R and 90 % CI were 100.92 % (94.35-107.94) for AUC0-t , 100.90 % (94.37-107.88) for AUC0-inf and 102.56 % (95.05-110.67) for C max. CONCLUSIONS: Test formulation of ibandronic acid is bioequivalent in rate and extent of absorption to Bonviva(®) following a 150-mg dose, under fasting 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".