Trial reportDrug design, development and therapy2025
Relative Bioavailability of Inhaled Fluticasone Propionate and Salmeterol - is Population Pharmacokinetic Modelling a Relevant Alternative to a Non-Compartmental Approach?
Trial report in Drug design, development and therapy, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Conventional statistical analysis of clinical data based on standard methods suggests that fixed combinations of fluticasone propionate (FP) and salmeterol (SALM) inhaled via Wixela Methods: Three inhalations of FP/SALM were administered to healthy subjects with 7-day washouts via test and reference and delivered doses of 100/50, 250/50, or 500/50 µg (total matched doses of 300/150, 750/150, or 1500/150 µg) in studies 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Empirically derived pharmacokinetic structural models, considering random effects of subject (FP, SALM) or study (SALM), emulating linear first-order input, disposition and elimination were fitted to plasma concentrations with a frequentist approach, by study/dose of FP, and across studies of SALM, using product as categorical covariate. Bioequivalence was assessed using individually predicted relative systemic extent of bioavailability (F4_rel) and ratio of individually predicted peak concentrations (Cmax). Results: The models adequately described plasma concentration versus time data. Descriptive statistics and bioequivalence assessments (90% confidence interval generally within 0.80-1.25) reflected NCA-derived outcomes. Conclusion: Model- and NCA-based approaches to assess bioequivalence were consistent. However, a frequentist parametric approach that fully utilizes the population analysis potential and mechanistically predicts regional pulmonary deposition of FP and SALM would require a demographically more heterogenous data set and analysis including additional outcomes of parenteral and oral administration to discriminate presystemic from systemic disposition.
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.