A Phase I Study of the Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Intranasal Doxylamine in Subjects with Chronic Intermittent Sleep Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Doxylamine tablets are approved as an over-the-counter sleep aid. We developed a doxylamine succinate intranasal metered-dose delivery system with the expectation of a more rapid onset of action with reduced side-effect potential compared with the oral tablet. METHODS: This phase I study randomized 24 adults with chronic intermittent sleep impairment to receive either single doses of intranasal doxylamine succinate 3.2, 6.3, or 12.7 mg or doxylamine succinate 25-mg oral tablet. Doxylamine pharmacokinetics were assessed using noncompartmental methods; pharmacodynamics were evaluated using the Karolinska Sleepiness Scale (KSS) and numerous psychomotor tests. Adverse events (AEs) were monitored. RESULTS: and area under the doxylamine concentration-time curve were approximately 25% of the values achieved with the oral dose. Variation in most pharmacokinetic parameters was higher with intranasal compared with oral dosing. A relationship between plasma doxylamine concentration and KSS change from baseline was evident for the 25-mg tablet and, to a lesser extent, for the 12.7-mg intranasal dose. Changes from baseline in psychomotor parameters did not show a relationship to intranasal dose, and did not distinguish between intranasal versus oral dosing. The most common AEs with intranasal dosing were nasal congestion, nasal dryness, and frontal headache. CONCLUSION: The nasal spray did not increase doxylamine absorption or systemic bioavailability compared with the oral tablet.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".