ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2024
Comparative study on the bioavailability and bioequivalence of rifapentine capsules in humans.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Introduction: : Rifapentine, a potent semi-synthetic member of the rifamycin class, is approved for the treatment of tuberculosis due to its effective bactericidal properties. It is essential to assess the bioequivalence and bioavailability of different rifapentine formulations to ensure consistent clinical outcomes. This study compares the pharmacokinetic profiles of test and reference rifapentine capsules in healthy male volunteers. Methods: In this single-dose, randomized, crossover study, 19 healthy male volunteers aged 18-40 received 0.6 g of either the test or reference rifapentine capsules. The reference is an NMPA-approved product, while the test is a modified version intended to match it in safety and efficacy; both contain the same active ingredient but may differ in excipients or manufacturing processes. Blood samples were collected at predefined intervals over a 84-h period following administration to measure rifapentine plasma concentrations using UPLC. Key pharmacokinetic parameters, including maximum concentration (C Results: The pharmacokinetic analysis demonstrated that both formulations of rifapentine had similar absorption rates and extent of exposure. The mean Cmax, Tmax, and AUC values were closely aligned between the two formulations. Statistical analysis, including ANOVA and bioequivalence testing, confirmed that the 90% confidence intervals for the primary pharmacokinetic parameters (C Discussion: The results of this study confirm the bioequivalence of the test and reference formulations of rifapentine under the conditions tested. These findings support the interchangeable use of these formulations in clinical practice for the treatment of tuberculosis. This study contributes to the body of evidence needed to ensure that patients receive a consistent therapeutic effect when administered either formulation of rifapentine. Conclusion: The bioequivalence demonstrated between the test and reference rifapentine capsules supports their use in clinical settings where rifapentine is indicated for tuberculosis therapy. This study provides a robust foundation for the regulatory approval of generic formulations of rifapentine, ensuring that patients have access to effective and lower-cost medication options.
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.