Pharmacokinetics and Comparative Bioavailability of a Levothyroxine Sodium Oral Solution and Soft Capsule
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A new formulation of levothyroxine sodium has been developed in the form of an oral solution contained in unit‐dose ampules. A study has been conducted to compare the bioavailability of levothyroxine sodium oral solution and levothyroxine sodium soft capsule in healthy volunteers under fasting conditions. The rate and extent of absorption of the new levothyroxine solution were also evaluated when administered on dilution in water or directly into the mouth without water. In each period, according to the randomization scheme, subjects were administered single oral doses of either test, as 4 × 150‐μg unit‐dose ampules, with or without water, or reference, as 4 × 150‐μg capsules in a crossover design. Thirty‐six subjects were randomized and dosed in this study; of these, 31 completed all study periods. When comparing the solution with the capsule (both products administered with water), the 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of log‐transformed values of AUC0‐48 and Cmax were within 90.00% and 111.11%, respectively, for baseline‐corrected levothyroxine. Moreover, the administration of levothyroxine oral solution without water did not affect the rate and extent of its absorption. In conclusion, levothyroxine oral solution unit‐dose ampules were bioequivalent to the levothyroxine capsule when administered with or without water. All formulations were well tolerated, with no major side effects.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".