ArticleTherapeutics and clinical risk management2013
Comparative pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation of branded and generic formulations of meloxicam in healthy male volunteers.
Article in Therapeutics and clinical risk management, 2013. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling of meloxicam in different CYP2C9 genotypes.Archives of pharmacal research · 2021Article
- Sampling times and genotyping concerns in bioequivalence evaluation of branded and generic formulations.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe primary aim of the present study was to assess the pharmacokinetic bioequivalence between a generic formulation of meloxicam 15 mg tablets (Meloxicam Hexal) and its respective brand product (Mobic), in order to verify whether the generic product conforms to the regulatory standards of bioequivalence in the postmarketing setting. As a secondary exploratory aim, the pharmacodynamic effects of the two formulations were also evaluated by means of rating scales following hyperalgesia induced by cutaneous freeze injury. SUBJECTS AND
methodsA single 15 mg dose of generic or branded meloxicam tablets was administered to 24 healthy male volunteers in a crossover fashion. Plasma samples, collected for 24 hours after dosing, were assayed for meloxicam concentration by a validated highperformance liquid chromatography method.
resultsTHE ANALYSIS OF PHARMACOKINETIC PARAMETERS DID NOT SHOW ANY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO MELOXICAM FORMULATIONS: the 90% confidence intervals fell within the acceptance range of 80%-125% (0.84-1.16 for area under the curve [0-24], and 0.89-1.23 for peak concentration). No difference in the pharmacodynamic end point was observed between the two groups.
conclusionThe pharmacokinetic profiles of the two meloxicam formulations confirm the regulatory criteria for bioequivalence; pharmacodynamic data indicate a similar antihyperalgesic effect. The two formulations can be used interchangeably in the clinical setting.
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.