A Pharmacokinetic Bioequivalence Study Comparing Sublingual Riluzole (BHV‐0223) and Oral Tablet Formulation of Riluzole in Healthy Volunteers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Orally administered riluzole extends survival in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, although it has significant shortcomings (eg, adverse events, dysphagic patients) that limit its utility. BHV‐0223 is a Zydis‐based orally disintegrating formulation of riluzole designed for sublingual administration that addresses the limitations of conventional tablets. This study assessed the bioequivalence between 40‐mg BHV‐0223 and standard 50‐mg oral riluzole tablets, and the food effect on BHV‐0223 pharmacokinetics in healthy volunteers. Overall, 133 healthy subjects received BHV‐0223 and riluzole tablets under fasted conditions. Geometric mean ratios for the area under the plasma concentration–time curve (AUC) from time zero to time of last nonzero concentration (AUC 0‐t ) (89.9%; confidence interval [CI], 87.3%–92.5%), AUC from time zero to infinity (AUC 0‐∞ ) (89.8%; CI, 87.3%–92.4%), and maximum observed concentration (112.7%; CI, 105.5%–120.4%) all met bioequivalence criteria (80%–125%). Subsequently, 67 subjects received BHV‐0223 under fed conditions. The geometric mean ratios of AUC 0‐t (91.2%; CI, 88.1–94.3%), and AUC 0‐∞ (92.0%; CI, 89.0–95.1%) were similar, but maximum observed concentration ratios were not within bioequivalence criteria. BHV‐0223 was well tolerated. This study demonstrated that 40‐mg sublingual BHV‐0223 is bioequivalent to 50‐mg oral riluzole tablets.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".