ArticleClinical pharmacokinetics1991
Bioinequivalence of four 100 mg oral aspirin formulations in healthy volunteers.
Article in Clinical pharmacokinetics, 1991. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Drug resistance and pseudoresistance: an unintended consequence of enteric coating aspirin.Circulation · 2013Trial
- Aspirin in essential thrombocythemia. For whom? What formulation? What regimen?Haematologica · 2023Review
- Pharmacological Efficacy and Gastrointestinal Safety of Different Aspirin Formulations for Cardiovascular Prevention: A Narrative Review.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023Review
- Acetyl salicylic acid attenuates cardiac hypertrophy through Wnt signaling.Frontiers of medicine · 2015Article
- [Original brands and generic preparations].Medizinische Klinik (Munich, Germany : 1983) · 2000Review
- Generic drugs. Therapeutic equivalence.Drug safety · 1996Review
- Aspirin for myocardial infarction. Clinical pharmacokinetic considerations.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 1995Review
- Pharmacokinetic optimisation of the treatment of embolic disorders.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 1995Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The single dose pharmacokinetics of 4 commercially available 100 mg oral aspirin formulations were studied in 6 healthy men and 6 healthy women. Two of the formulations were rapid release ('Cardiprin' 100, 'Platelin') and the other 2 were enteric coated formulations ('Astrix' 100, 'Cartia'). There were marked differences in the plasma concentration-time profiles between the rapid release and the enteric coated formulations. There were no significant differences (p greater than 0.05) in the mean time to achieve maximum aspirin concentrations between 'Cardiprin' 100 (0.48 h) and 'Platelin' (0.35 h), but this was significantly prolonged (p less than 0.001) for 'Astrix' 100 (3.73 h) and even more prolonged for 'Cartia' (6.84 h). Similar between-formulation differences were seen in the areas under the plasma concentration-time curves, for which the rank order was 'Cardiprin' 100 (1.60 mg/L.h) = 'Platelin' (1.54 mg/L.h) greater than 'Astrix' 100 (0.73 mg/L.h) greater than 'Cartia' (0.56 mg/L.h). For 'Cardiprin' 100, 'Platelin' and 'Astrix' 100 plasma aspirin concentrations were below 5 micrograms/L by 7 h after ingestion, whereas for 'Cartia' aspirin was detectable for up to 16 h, giving the appearance of sustained release. The enteric coated formulations produced the greatest variability in the plasma aspirin concentration vs time profiles. The urinary recovery of salicylate was greater than 80% of the administered dose for all 4 formulations. The clinical significance of the marked pharmacokinetic differences observed with these 4 low-dose aspirin formulations is not known.
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.