Pharmacokinetic Interaction Among Ezetimibe, Rosuvastatin, and Telmisartan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To evaluate the pharmacokinetic interactions among rosuvastatin, ezetimibe, and telmisartan, a randomized, open‐label, 3‐period, 6‐sequence crossover study was conducted in healthy subjects. Subjects received one of the following treatments once daily for 7 days in each period with a 1‐week washout: a fixed‐dose combination of ezetimibe/rosuvastatin 10/20 mg, telmisartan 80 mg, combination therapy of ezetimibe/rosuvastatin 10/20 mg, or telmisartan 80 mg. Blood samples were collected up to 24 hours postdose at steady state. Geometric mean ratios (GMRs) and their 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the combination therapy to monotherapy for the maximum plasma concentration (C max,ss ), and the area under the time‐concentration curve within a dosing interval at steady state (AUC tau,ss ) were estimated. Among the 36 randomized subjects, 31 subjects completed the study. The GMRs and 90%CIs of C max,ss and AUC tau,ss of total ezetimibe were not significantly altered. The C max,ss of free ezetimibe was increased (GMR, 1.85; 90%CI, 1.56–2.19) but not for the AUC tau,ss (GMR, 1.16; 90%CI, 1.06–1.26). Similarly, the C max,ss of rosuvastatin was increased (GMR, 2.13; 90%CI, 1.88–2.43) without a change in the AUC tau,ss (GMR, 1.09; 90%CI, 1.03–1.15). The C max,ss (GMR, 1.16; 90%CI, 1.01–1.32) and AUC tau,ss (GMR, 1.26; 90%CI, 1.17–1.37) of telmisartan were slightly increased. Considering the therapeutic range of the components, the interaction would have limited clinical impact.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".