ArticleAAPS PharmSciTech2024
Evaluation of Pharmacokinetics of a BCS Class III Drug with Two Different Study Designs: Tenofovir Alafenamide Monofumarate Film-coated Tablet.
Article in AAPS PharmSciTech, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) is a BCS Class III compound and an oral pro-drug of Tenofovir (TFV) with limited oral bioavailability. The bioavailability of the oral intake increases with food as a result of the low stability of the active substance in the stomach. The reference drug is "Vemlidy® 25 mg Film Tablet", which contains 25 mg of TAF in "hemifumarate" form, is under patent protection until 15.08.2032 by Gilead, and so the "monofumarate" form was used in the present study. At first, a pilot study was conducted involving 12 subjects under fed conditions. The results of the pilot study revealed the test and reference products were not bioequivalent, as a result of insufficient statistical power and high inter-subject variability. Secondly, a physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) simulation was performed based on the pilot study results and literature data. Finally, the power of the design was increased and the pivotal study design was optimized into a four-period, full-replicated, cross-over study with 34 subjects under fed conditions and it was concluded that the test and reference products were bioequivalent. In conclusion, the present study proved the importance of a correct study design with higher statistical power for a BCS Class III compound with high variability, to present the pharmacokinetics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38816624What 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.