Trial reportClinical drug investigation2013
Pharmacokinetic comparisons of bepotastine besilate and bepotastine salicylate in healthy subjects.
Trial report in Clinical drug investigation, 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.
- Efficacy of bepotastine compared with hydroxyzine in preventing rituximab-induced infusion-related reactions in non-hodgkin lymphoma patients: a phase II, double-blind, multicenter, and randomized trial.International journal of clinical oncology · 2026Trial
- Pharmacokinetic Modeling of Bepotastine for Determination of Optimal Dosage Regimen in Pediatric Patients with Allergic Rhinitis or Urticaria.Pharmaceutics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveBepotastine is a second-generation histamine H(1) receptor antagonist that is indicated in allergic rhinitis, urticaria, and pruritus associated with skin disease. The aim of the present study was to compare the pharmacokinetics of two different bepotastine formulations [bepotastine besilate 10 mg (reference) and bepotastine salicylate 9.64 mg (test)], both containing 7.11 mg bepotastine base, to satisfy regulatory requirements for marketing.
methodsA single-center, randomized, single-dose, open-label, two-period, two-sequence crossover study with a 7-day washout period was conducted in 26 healthy male subjects. Plasma samples for drug analysis were collected up to 24 h after drug treatment. Pharmacokinetic parameters, including maximum plasma concentration (C(max)) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC), were calculated. ANOVA for bioequivalence was conducted using log-transformed C(max) and AUC values, and the mean ratios and their 90 % confidence intervals were calculated.
resultsOf the 26 participants initially enrolled, 24 healthy participants completed both treatment periods. All pharmacokinetic parameters of bepotastine exhibited no significant differences between the two formulations. The observed mean (standard deviation) C(max), AUC from time zero to the time of the last measurable concentration (AUC(last)), and AUC from time zero to infinity (AUC(∞)) values for the reference formulation were 99.9 (31.4) ng/mL, 388.9 (102.6) ng·h/mL, and 392.4 (103.6) ng·h/mL, respectively. Corresponding values for the test formulation were 101.0 (26.3) ng/mL, 389.8 (112.2) ng·h/mL, and 393.7 (111.7) ng·h/mL. The geometric mean ratios (90 % CI) between the two formulations were 1.0220 (0.9224-1.1324) for C(max), 0.9928 (0.9521-1.0351) for AUC(last), and 0.9959 (0.9549-1.0387) for AUC(∞). During the study period, two adverse events were reported in the test formulation group, but both were transient, mild, and resolved completely during the treatment period. These adverse events were considered unrelated to the study drugs.
conclusionThe results of the present study revealed that bepotastine besilate 10 mg (reference) and bepotastine salicylate 9.64 mg (test) formulations have comparable pharmacokinetic characteristics and that these two formulations meet the regulatory criteria for bioequivalence. Both bepotastine formulations were generally well-tolerated in this population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24105252What 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.