MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Study of pharmacokinetic parameters and safety of the drug Duonica® in comparison with the original combination of doxylamine and pyridoxine under fed conditions

2024· article· en· W4401454969 on OpenAlexaffabout
I. E. Shohin, S. M. Noskov, А. А. Глобенко, N. S. Bagaevа, K. K. Karnakova, О. М. Parulya, Lyudmila Lutskova, A. V. Kapashin, M. A. Pasko

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Canadian institutionsCanadian Public Health Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPyridoxinePharmacokineticsPharmacologyDrugChemistryMedicineBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim. A comparative study of the pharmacokinetics and safety of the investigational drug Duonica®, enteric-soluble, film-coated tablets, 10 mg + 10 mg (Valenta Pharm JSC, Russia) and the reference drug Diclectin®, delayed-release tablets, 10 mg + 10 mg (Duchesnay Inc, Canada) was conducted as part of the bioequivalence study in healthy volunteers under fed conditions. Material and methods. An open-label randomized crossover two-period bioequivalence study was conducted with 28 Caucasian female volunteers. The study participants were randomly divided into two groups of 14 people depending on the order of drug administration during Periods 1 and 2. Participants randomized to the first group received 2 tablets of Diclectin® during Period 1 and 2 tablets of Duonica® during Period 2. Volunteers from the second group took the study drugs in the reverse order. During each study Period, the drugs were administered after a high-calorie breakfast. The analytes studied were doxylamine and pyridoxal-5-phosphate (an active metabolite of pyridoxine). Methods were developed and validated using high-performance liquid chromatography with a triple quadrupole tandem mass spectrometric detector (HPLC-MS/MS) to quantify the analytes. Pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated from the obtained concentration values and statistical analysis was performed. To confirm bioequivalence, 90 % confidence intervals (CI) for the pharmacokinetic parameters AUC and Cmax of the studied analytes were calculated. The safety of the investigational drugs was assessed based on the frequency, severity and type of adverse events. Results. The 90 % CI values for the ratio of Cmax and AUC(0-t) values for doxylamine were 94.08–113.71 % and 90.63–102.50 %, and for pyridoxal-5-phosphate were 97.34–123.47 % and 90.30–111.03 %, respectively. The obtained CI values were within the limits set by the regulatory requirements and the study protocol (80.00–125.00 %), which allowed us to confirm the bioequivalence of the studied drugs for both components. No adverse events were reported during the study. Conclusion. The study investigated the pharmacokinetics of drugs containing a fixed combination of doxylamine and pyridoxine under fed conditions. The results obtained confirmed the bioequivalence of the drug Duonica® to the reference drug Diclectin®. Both drugs were well tolerated and no differences in the safety profile of the investigational drugs were observed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics→Same topicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments→French-language works237,207→