MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2179799499 · doi:10.18433/j36p5m

When Bioequivalence in Healthy Volunteers May not Translate to Bioequivalence in Patients: Differential Effects of Increased Gastric pH on the Pharmacokinetics of Levothyroxine Capsules and Tablets

2015· article· en· W2179799499 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Corinne Seng Yue, Salvatore Benvenga, Claudia Scarsi, Luca Loprete, Murray P. Ducharme

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioequivalenceCmaxEsomeprazolePharmacokineticsLevothyroxineCrossover studyMedicineBioavailabilityPharmacologyInternal medicinePlacebo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Clinical studies have suggested that proton pump inhibitors may decrease levothyroxine absorption and an in vitro study suggested that the effect of pH on dissolution may differ with formulation. To determine the impact of formulation on the pharmacokinetics of levothyroxine in altered gastric pH conditions, this study compared the pharmacokinetics of levothyroxine capsules and tablets, two formulations deemed bioequivalent in healthy volunteers under fasting conditions, when taken with or without esomeprazole. METHODS: Two clinical studies were conducted in healthy volunteers given single dose levothyroxine (600 mg) with a 45-day washout period. In Study 1 (parallel-design/two-way crossover), 16 subjects received either levothyroxine capsules or tablets, each group with or without prior administration of intravenous esomeprazole (maximum dose of 80 mg). In Study 2 (two-way crossover), 16 subjects received both capsules or tablets after intravenous esomeprazole. Blood samples were collected pre-dose and up to 24 hours post-dose. Baseline-adjusted pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated: Cmax (maximal concentration), Tmax (time to Cmax), AUC0-t (area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to the last detectable concentration), AUC0-6 and AUC0-12 (areas under the curve from 0 to 6 and 12 hours, respectively). Analyses of variance were conducted to compare ln-transformed Cmax and AUC. Non-parametric Tmax analyses were done. RESULTS: In Study 1, esomeprazole caused a greater decrease in overall levothyroxine exposure of tablets vs. capsules (13% vs 6% for Cmax, 18% vs. 14% for AUC(0-6), 17% vs. 5% for AUC(0-12) and 10% vs. 8% for AUC(0-t)). In Study 2 esomeprazole administration resulted in a 16% smaller levothyroxine exposure with tablets vs. capsules. No statistically significant differences in Tmax were found. CONCLUSIONS: Although both formulations are considered "bioequivalent" in healthy volunteers, they may not necessarily be bioequivalent in patients with impaired gastric pH conditions. Levothyroxine capsules may therefore be more appropriate for patients with decreased gastric acidity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.317 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations42
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical SciencesSame topicGastroesophageal reflux and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207