Trial reportDrug design, development and therapy2015
Investigation of the bioequivalence of montelukast chewable tablets after a single oral administration using a validated LC-MS/MS method.
Trial report in Drug design, development and therapy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pharmacokinetics and Bioequivalence Evaluation of Two Montelukast Sodium Chewable Tablets in Healthy Chinese Volunteers Under Fasted and Fed Conditions.Drug design, development and therapy · 2021Trial
- Pharmaceutical Equivalence of Film-Coated and Chewable Tablets: A Comparative Dissolution Study Using Pulverized Chewable Tablets.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Preparation and In Vitro Evaluation of Montelukast Sodium-Loaded 3D Printed Orodispersible Films for the Treatment of Asthma.AAPS PharmSciTech · 2024Article
- Article
- Generic drug products in paediatrics: Where are the data?British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2019Article
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 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMontelukast (MT) is a leukotriene D4 antagonist. It is an effective and safe medicine for the prophylaxis and treatment of chronic asthma. It is also used to prevent acute exercise-induced bronchoconstriction and as a symptomatic relief of seasonal allergic rhinitis and perennial allergic rhinitis.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the bioequivalence (BE) of two drug products: generic MT 5 mg chewable tablets versus the branded drug Singulair(®) pediatric 5 mg chewable tablets among Mediterranean volunteers.
methodsAn open-label, randomized two-period crossover BE design was conducted in 32 healthy male volunteers with a 9-day washout period between doses and under fasting conditions. The drug concentrations in plasma were quantified by using a newly developed and fully validated liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry method, and the pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated using a non-compartmental model. The ratio for generic/branded tablets using geometric least squares means was calculated for both the MT products.
resultsThe relationship between concentration and peak area ratio was found to be linear within the range 6.098-365.855 ng/mL. The correlation coefficient (R (2)) was always greater than 0.99 during the course of the validation. Statistical comparison of the main pharmacokinetic parameters showed no significant difference between the generic and branded products. The point estimates (ratios of geometric means) were 101.2%, 101.6%, and 98.11% for area under the curve (AUC)0→last, AUC0→inf, and C max, respectively. The 90% confidence intervals were within the predefined limits of 80.00%-125.00% as specified by the US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency for BE studies.
conclusionBroncast(®) pediatric chewable tablets (5 mg/tablet) are bioequivalent to Singulair(®) pediatric chewable tablets (5 mg/tablet), with a similar safety profile. This suggests that these two formulations can be considered interchangeable in clinical practice.
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.