Trial reportEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2009
The bioavailability of bromazepam, omeprazole and paracetamol given by nasogastric feeding tube.
Trial report in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Medication Administration Through Feeding Tubes in a Tertiary Hospital: A Retrospective Observational Study.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2025Article
- Gastric emptying and acetaminophen: lessons learnt from the several co-administered drugs on the experimental design.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2016Article
- Plasma levels of oral risperidone during enteral nutrition in a pregnant schizophrenic patient.Therapeutic advances in psychopharmacology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo characterize and compare the pharmacokinetic profiles of bromazepam, omeprazole and paracetamol when administered by the oral and nasogastric routes to the same healthy cohort of volunteers.
methodsIn a prospective, monocentric, randomized crossover study, eight healthy volunteers received the three drugs by the oral (OR) and nasogastric routes (NT). Sequential plasma samples were analyzed by high-performance liquid chromatography-UV, pharmacokinetic parameters (Cmax, AUC(0-infinity), t(1/2), k(e), tmax) were compared statistically, and Cmax, AUC(0-infinity) and t(max) were analyzed for bioequivalence.
resultsA statistically significant difference was seen in the AUC(0-infinity) of bromazepam, with nasogastric administration decreasing availability by about 25%: AUC(OR) = 2501 ng mL(-1) h; AUC(NT) = 1855 ng mL(-1) h (p < 0.05); ratio (geometric mean) = 0.74 [90% confidence interval (CI) 0.64-0.87]. However, this does not appear to be clinically relevant given the usual dosage range and the drug's half-life (approx. 30 h). A large interindividual variability in omeprazole parameters prevented any statistical conclusion from being drawn in terms of both modes of administration despite their similar average profile: AUC(OR) = 579 ng mL(-1) h; AUC(NT) = 587 ng mL(-1) h (p > 0.05); ratio (geometric mean) = 1.01 (90% CI 0.64-1.61). An extended study with a larger number of subjects may possibly provide clearer answers. The narrow 90% confidence limits of paracetamol indicate bioequivalence: AUC(OR) = 37 microg mL(-1) h; AUC(NT) = 41 microg mL(-1) h(p > 0.05); ratio (geometric mean) = 1.12 (90% CI 0.98-1.28).
conclusionThe results of this study show that the nasogastric route of administration does not appear to cause marked, clinically unsuitable alterations in the bioavailability of the tested drugs.
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.