MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415229655 · doi:10.1007/s40261-025-01474-3

Comparative Bioavailability of Methylphenidate Powder for Prolonged-Release Oral Suspension and Methylphenidate Prolonged-Release Chewable Tablets versus Methylphenidate Immediate-Release Tablets: Phase 1, Single-Dose, Randomised, Crossover Studies in Healthy Adults

2025· article· en· W4415229655 on OpenAlexaff
Josep Antoni Ramos‐Quiroga, Marta Forcadell Ferré, Alex Schneider-Pérez, Mohammed Bouhajib

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Drug Investigation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsPharma Medica Research (Canada)
FundersNeuraxpharm
KeywordsBioequivalenceMethylphenidateCrossover studyBioavailabilitySuspension (topology)DrugDosage form

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Various oral methylphenidate formulations are available to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, but unmet needs still exist, particularly for individuals with swallowing difficulties or those requiring more flexible dosing options. Two phase 1 studies evaluated the comparative bioavailability and safety/tolerability of two prolonged-release (PR) methylphenidate formulations, an oral suspension and a chewable tablet, compared with an established immediate-release (IR) oral tablet formulation. Healthy volunteers were randomised to receive a single dose of methylphenidate PR oral suspension (total dose 60 mg; study 1) or chewable tablet (total dose 40 mg; study 2) and methylphenidate IR tablets (total dose 60 mg in study 1 and 40 mg in study 2) in a crossover manner, with a 7-day washout between treatment periods. Blood samples were collected over the 24-h post-administration period. Comparative bioavailability was defined as the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the relative mean plasma d-methylphenidate area under the plasma concentration–time curve from zero to last measurable concentration (AUClast) of methylphenidate PR formulation to methylphenidate IR being between 80 and 125%. Adverse events (AEs) were documented. In total, 24 individuals (mean age 39–42 years, approximately 50% male) were randomised in each study, of whom 23 received methylphenidate PR oral suspension in study 1 and 23 received methylphenidate PR chewable tablets in study 2; 24 received methylphenidate IR tablets in each study. The relative mean plasma d-methylphenidate AUClast ratios for methylphenidate PR formulation to methylphenidate IR tablets had 90% CIs of 82.30–87.18% in study 1 and 90.01–97.52% in study 2. Treatment-emergent AEs were reported in 26% and 22% of participants receiving the oral suspension and chewable tablets, respectively (versus 50% and 33% of those receiving the IR tablets in the respective studies). These AEs were typical of orally administered methylphenidate, mild in severity and, in general, resolved prior to study end. The methylphenidate PR oral suspension and chewable tablet formulations are bioequivalent in terms of the total extent of exposure (AUClast) to methylphenidate IR tablets and are tolerable in healthy adults. Methylphenidate is a drug often used to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Various products (formulations) containing methylphenidate are available for doctors to prescribe, but it would be useful for additional formulations to be available to allow treatment to be more precisely tailored for each patient. In particular, formulations that release methylphenidate slowly into the bloodstream (‘prolonged-release’ [PR] formulations) are more effective at controlling symptoms over the course of each day than those that release methylphenidate more quickly (‘immediate-release’ [IR] formulations). Two studies were conducted to assess how two PR formulations of methylphenidate—a powder mixed with water (oral suspension) and a chewable tablet—compared with a commonly prescribed IR oral tablet formulation of methylphenidate in terms of the concentration of the drug achieved in the blood (termed ‘exposure’ to methylphenidate) and safety. In total, 24 healthy adults participated in each study. The studies were divided into two parts—initially, participants received either the PR formulation or the IR formulation; 7 days later, they received whichever formulation they had not received in the first part of the study. Over the 24 h, after each treatment was received, blood samples were taken to determine methylphenidate concentrations, and adverse effects were assessed. Exposure to methylphenidate was similar with each PR formulation versus the IR formulation. Further, the PR formulations were well-tolerated by participants, having adverse effects similar to those previously reported for methylphenidate. Therefore, the methylphenidate PR oral suspension and chewable tablet formulations can be considered important additions to the treatment options available for ADHD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Drug InvestigationSame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207