Trial reportEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2016
Bioavailability of paracetamol with/without caffeine in Egyptian patients with hepatitis C virus.
Trial report in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2016. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antimicrobial potentials and challenges of paracetamol: A comprehensive reassessment based on database reports.Pharmaceutical science advances · 2025Review
- Paracetamol and Caffeine Combination in Pain Management: A Narrative Review.Pain research & management · 2025Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study investigates the involvement of liver dysfunction in the modulation of paracetamol pharmacokinetic profile in genotype-4 HCV patients treated with either paracetamol alone (Para) or in combination with caffeine (Para-Caf).
methodsTwenty healthy volunteers and 20 Child-Pugh B HCV patients, each divided into two equal subgroups, were examined, whose liver/kidney functions were correlated with their main clinical manifestation. After an overnight fasting, healthy and hepatic subjects received either a single dose of Para (1000 mg paracetamol) or Para-Caf (1000 mg paracetamol/130 mg caffeine). Two milliliters of saliva samples were collected prior to and at different time-intervals after drug administration and analyzed using HPLC.
resultsThere was a noticeable increase in the mean concentration time profile of salivary paracetamol concentrations in hepatic patients, with concomitant decrease in paracetamol clearance (CLT), along with induction in the primary pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters, C max, AUC(0-8 h) and AUC(0-∞) (by about 95, 82, and 64 %, respectively, after treatment with Para, and 98, 96, and 101 %, respectively, after treatment with Para-Caf), when compared with the corresponding parameters in healthy subjects. Additionally, the healthy subjects treated with Para-Caf exhibited bioinequivalent increase in C max, K a, and t 1/2 with decrease in T max when compared with the healthy individuals treated with Para alone. A similar pattern was recorded in hepatic patients after addition of caffeine to paracetamol, with even augmented significant increase in K a and t 1/2 (by 100 and 32 %, respectively).
conclusionsLiver dysfunction modified the PK of paracetamol expressed as earlier effective paracetamol concentration, with obvious decrease in its clearance. Caffeine induced faster absorption (evidenced by shorter T max and higher K a) and prolonged t 1/2 of paracetamol, the effects that were more profound in hepatic patients. Further studies are needed to evaluate the influence of liver damage on paracetamol pharmacokinetics whenever repeated dosing is applied, to avoid possible drug accumulation.
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.