Trial reportInternational journal of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics2018
Pharmacokinetic characterization of three novel 4-mg nicotine lozenges .
Trial report in International journal of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2018. 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.
- Nicotine pharmacokinetics and subjective response among adult smokers using different flavors of on!® nicotine pouches compared to combustible cigarettes.Psychopharmacology · 2021Trial
- A Single-Dose, Crossover-Design Bioequivalence Study Comparing Two Nicotine Gum Formulations in Healthy Subjects.Advances in therapy · 2018Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveNicotine replacement therapy (NRT) increases the probability of smoking cessation. This study was conducted to determine if three prototype 4-mg nicotine lozenges produced locally in India were bioequivalent to a globally marketed reference product, Nicorette® 4-mg nicotine lozenge. MATERIALS AND
methodsHealthy adult smokers (N = 39) were treated with three prototype 4-mg nicotine lozenges in comparison with a reference 4-mg lozenge in this single-center, randomized, open-label, single-dose, 4-way crossover study. Pharmacokinetic sampling was obtained to test for bioequivalence using maximal plasma concentration (Cmax) and extent of absorption (AUC0-t). Secondarily, AUC;0-∞, time to maximal plasma concentration (tmax), half-life (T1/2), elimination rate constant (Kel), and safety of the prototype lozenges versus the reference lozenge were compared.
resultsEach prototype 4-mg nicotine lozenge was found to be bioequivalent to the reference 4-mg nicotine lozenge based on the ratio of geometric means and 90% confidence intervals for Cmax, AUC0-t, and AUC;0-∞. Although tmax; was significantly longer for prototype III, all four lozenges achieved maximum plasma nicotine concentrations at a median of 1.5 hours. The safety profiles of the three prototype 4-mg lozenges did not differ from that of the 4-mg reference product.
conclusionEach prototype 4-mg nicotine lozenge was bioequivalent to the reference 4-mg nicotine lozenge and was well tolerated. Furthermore, as these bioequivalent prototypes differed in in-vitro dissolution profiles, these data suggest that performance from the in -vitro method deployed is not a firm predictor of pharmacokinetic behavior. .
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.