MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2750323361 · doi:10.1111/bcp.13395

Single‐dose pharmacokinetics of co‐crystal of tramadol–celecoxib: Results of a four‐way randomized open‐label phase I clinical trial in healthy subjects

2017· article· en· W2750323361 on OpenAlexaff
Sebastián Videla, Mounia Lahjou, Anna Vaqué, Mariano Sust, Mercedes Encabo, Lluís Soler, Artur Sans, Éric Sicard, Neus Gascón, Gregorio Encina, Carlos R. Plata‐Saláman

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicCrystallography and molecular interactions
Canadian institutionsBioPhage Pharma (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCelecoxibTramadolPharmacokineticsMedicineAdverse effectBioequivalencePharmacologyArea under the curveUrologyAnalgesic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims Co‐crystal of tramadol–celecoxib (CTC) is a novel co‐crystal molecule containing two active pharmaceutical ingredients under development by Esteve (E‐58425) and Mundipharma Research (MR308). This Phase I study compared single‐dose pharmacokinetics (PK) of CTC with those of the individual reference products [immediate‐release (IR) tramadol and celecoxib] alone and in open combination. Methods Healthy adults aged 18–55 years were orally administered four treatments under fasted conditions (separated by 7‐day wash‐out period): 200 mg IR CTC (equivalent to 88 mg tramadol and 112 mg celecoxib; Treatment 1); 100 mg IR tramadol (Treatment 2); 100 mg celecoxib (Treatment 3); and 100 mg IR tramadol and 100 mg celecoxib (Treatment 4). Treatment sequence was assigned using computer‐generated randomization. PK parameters were calculated using noncompartmental analysis with parameters for CTC adjusted according to reference product dose (100 mg). Results Thirty‐six subjects (28 male, mean age 36 years) participated. Tramadol PK parameters for Treatments‐1, –2 and –4, respectively, were 263, 346 and 349 ng ml–1 (mean maximum plasma concentration); 3039, 2979 and 3119 ng h ml–1 (mean cumulative area under the plasma concentration–time curve); and 2.7, 1.8 and 1.8 h (median time to maximum plasma concentration). For Treatments 1, 3 and 4, the respective celecoxib PK parameters were 313, 449 and 284 ng ml–1; 2183, 3093 and 2856 ng h ml–1; and 1.5, 2.3 and 3.0 h. No unexpected adverse events were reported. Conclusion PK parameters of each API in CTC were modified by co‐crystallization compared with marketed formulations of tramadol, celecoxib, and their open combination.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.195
GPT teacher head0.516
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations47
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Clinical PharmacologySame topicCrystallography and molecular interactionsFrench-language works237,207