Food effect on the bioavailability of two distinct formulations of megestrol acetate oral suspension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Benoit Deschamps1, Naomi Musaji2, John A Gillespie21SFBC Anapharm, Montreal, Canada; 2Strativa Pharmaceuticals, a division of Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Woodcliff Lake, NJ, USAObjective: Megestrol acetate oral suspension (MAOS) is an appetite stimulant indicated for cachexia in patients with AIDS. It is available in its original formulation, Megace® (MAOS), and as a nanocrystal dispersion, Megace® ES (MA-ES). Three studies were conducted to evaluate the pharmacokinetic properties of these formulations under fed and fasting conditions.Methods: An open-label, crossover trial was conducted in 24 healthy males randomized to MA-ES 625 mg/5 mL given with a high-calorie, high-fat meal, or after an overnight fast. Blood samples were drawn at multiple time points and pharmacokinetic parameters were determined. Two separate, open-label reference studies evaluated MAOS 800 mg/20 mL in 40 fed or 40 fasting healthy male volunteers.Results: In fasting MA-ES subjects, the average maximum concentration (Cmax) was 30% less than the fed Cmax value. For MAOS, fasting Cmax was 86% less than fed Cmax. In fasting subjects, the area under the curve was 12,095 ng⋅h/mL for MA-ES, and 8,942 ng⋅h/mL for MAOS. In fed subjects, the absorption of the two formulations was comparable.Conclusion: Bioavailability and absorption are greater for MA-ES than MAOS in fasting subjects. MA-ES may be a preferred formulation of megestrol acetate when managing cachectic patients whose caloric intake is reduced.Keywords: megestrol acetate, bioavailability, cachexia, nanocrystal technology, appetite stimulant
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".