Trial reportClinical pharmacokinetics2003
Dose linearity of lacidipine pharmacokinetics after single and repeated oral doses in healthy volunteers.
Trial report in Clinical pharmacokinetics, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accelerated Repurposing and Drug Development of Pulmonary Hypertension Therapies for COVID-19 Treatment Using an AI-Integrated Biosimulation Platform.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the dose proportionality of lacidipine after single and repeated oral doses, and to obtain new information on the pharmacokinetics of the compound since improvement of the plasma assay method.
designOpen, randomised, four-way cross-over trial.
participants24 healthy male and female volunteers, aged 18-46 years.
methodsLacidipine was administered as single doses of 2, 4, 6 and 8 mg, and as multiple doses of 2, 4 and 6 mg for 8 days. Pharmacokinetic evaluations were performed on study days 1 and 8. Plasma concentrations of lacidipine were determined by a validated high-performance liquid chromatography-radioimmunoassay method. The ratios of dose-normalised peak plasma concentration (C(max)) and area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) were calculated and then compared across dose groups by analysis of variance to assess dose linearity against a 4 mg reference dose. A power model was also applied as an alternative method for the evaluation of linearity.
resultsAfter repeated 2, 4 and 6 mg doses of lacidipine, geometric least square mean values (95% CI) were 1.76 (1.46-2.12), 3.56 (2.96-4.29) and 5.23 (4.34--6.30) microg/L for C(max) and 5.29 (4.57-6.11), 11.42 (9.87-13.20) and 17.55 (15.18-20.29) microg x h/L for AUC over the administration interval at steady state (AUC(tau)), respectively. Mean half-life ranged between 13.2 hours and 18.7 hours. Precision of these estimates was limited by the small number of sampling timepoints collected in the final part of the curve. After administration of single doses, no statistically significant deviation from linearity was found except for the 8 mg dose, but a trend of greater than proportional exposure was evident with increasing dose. Following repeated administration, dose linearity over the therapeutic range was observed. No statistically significant difference was observed between AUC to infinity (AUC( infinity)) on day 1 and AUC(tau) on day 8, suggesting time-invariance of pharmacokinetics.
conclusionsLacidipine exhibited linear kinetics after repeated doses in the therapeutic range of 2-6 mg once daily. The two different methodologies for assessing linearity gave consistent results. Only the single 8 mg dose, which is outside the recommended therapeutic range, resulted in greater than predicted exposure. After low doses, the analytical method still does not allow complete characterisation of kinetics. Time-invariance of lacidipine kinetics is suggested.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.