Relative bioavailability and food effect study of an oral suspension of alectinib in healthy volunteers using venipuncture and capillary microsampling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Alectinib, approved as 150 mg capsules for the treatment of adults with advanced ALK‐positive non‐small cell lung cancer, is being assessed in children with ALK‐positive solid and central nervous system tumors. An ad hoc pediatric‐friendly suspension of alectinib, prepared from capsule contents, is under investigation as an alternative formulation for children who cannot swallow capsules. This randomized, crossover, relative bioavailability, and food effect study evaluated alectinib administered as an oral suspension versus capsule formulation following conventional venipuncture and capillary microsampling. A total of 28 healthy adult subjects received a 600 mg single dose of alectinib in two groups: fasted (n = 14) and mixed fed (n = 14; seven receiving high‐fat meal and seven receiving low‐fat meal). Combined alectinib + M4 (active metabolite) exposure was higher for suspension versus capsule, with geometric mean ratio (GMR) of 2.6 for area under the concentration–time curve extrapolated to infinity (AUC0‐∞) and 3.0 for maximum observed concentration (Cmax) under fasted conditions, and 1.7 for both parameters for mixed fed. The suspension showed increased alectinib + M4 AUC0‐∞ following a high‐fat meal versus fasted conditions (GMR 1.7 [90% confidence interval 1.4–2.2]). Alectinib AUC0‐∞ and Cmax measured in venous and capillary samples were generally similar for the suspension and capsule. Single oral doses of 600 mg alectinib suspension and capsule were well tolerated, with no safety concerns. Based on these findings, the oral suspension of alectinib appears suitable for use in pediatric studies after appropriate dose adjustment relative to the capsule.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".