Capsule and Sprinkle Formulations of Lubiprostone Are Not Biologically Similar in Patients with Functional Constipation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Lubiprostone capsules are approved for managing three different chronic constipation conditions. A "sprinkle" formulation may facilitate use in individuals with difficulty swallowing capsules. Our objective was to evaluate the bioequivalence, pharmacokinetics (PK), and bioavailability of lubiprostone sprinkles vs lubiprostone capsules, compared with placebo. METHODS: A 1-week randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, bioequivalence study (study 302) and a single-dose PK and bioavailability crossover study (study 304) were conducted. In study 302, 522 subjects with chronic constipation were randomized to lubiprostone sprinkle 24 μg twice daily (BID), lubiprostone capsule 24 μg BID, or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was observed spontaneous bowel movement (SBM) counts (equivalence defined as showing the 90% confidence interval [CI] of the "between-group SBM ratio" to be contained within 0.8-1.25). Study 304 included two cohorts of healthy volunteers randomized to a single 48-μg lubiprostone dose, sprinkle, or capsule (n = 35) or to a single 48-μg sprinkle dose, in fed or fasted state (n = 14). RESULTS: Both lubiprostone formulations significantly improved SBM count (sprinkle, 4.82 ± 3.66, P = 0.002; capsule, 5.74 ± 3.79, P < 0.0001) vs placebo (3.68 ± 2.16), but equivalent efficacy was not demonstrated, with a 90% CI for the SBM count ratio of 0.69-0.95. Quantifiable PK data on lubiprostone were limited; however, overall exposure to the M3 metabolite was approximately 44% higher with sprinkles vs capsules under fasted conditions (geometric mean ratio 1.441 [90% CI, 1.166, 1.782]), and exposure with the sprinkle formulation was 11% lower in the fed state vs the fasted state (geometric mean ratio 0.888 [90% CI, 0.675, 1.168]). Both formulations were generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Despite the significant improvement in SBM counts vs placebo, the sprinkle formulation did not demonstrate bioequivalence to the capsule formulation in either pharmacodynamic or PK key parameters. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Study 302: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03097861; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03097861 ; Study 304: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03010631; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03010631 .
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".