↓ Skip to main content

Which bioequivalence study for a racemic drug? Application to milnacipran

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics, June 1998
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#11 of 434)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

patent
11 patents
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
5 Mendeley
Title
Which bioequivalence study for a racemic drug? Application to milnacipran
Published in
European Journal of Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics, June 1998
DOI 10.1007/bf03189334
Pubmed ID
Authors

D. Deprez, D. Chassard, P. Baille, A. Mignot, H. L. Ung, C. Puozzo

Abstract

Milnacipran, a new non tricyclic antidepressant drug, is a racemic mixture (F2207) composed of two enantiomers: F2695 and F2696, both demonstrated to be active. A randomized open label, single-dose latin square study was undertaken in 24 healthy volunteers to compare, based on racemate data, the relative bioavailability of two new formulations to that of a reference formulation. Later on, as suggested by actual regulatory trend, analysis was carried out on enantiomer data, although in a supportive way. Bioequivalence was assessed on calculation of 90% confidence intervals for log-transformed Cmax and AUC(0-infinity) and on Wilcoxon test for Tmax with a 5% level of significance. Based on racemate data, both test formulations were demonstrated to be equivalent to the reference capsule in terms of Cmax and AUC-(0-infinity). Differences in Tmax reached statistical significance, although their mean magnitude was small, and probably not relevant when related to antidepressant long-term therapy. When considering the test capsule - reference capsule comparison, the equivalence demonstrated for the racemate reflect that of each enantiomer. On the contrary, equivalence between the test tablet and the reference capsule demonstrated for the racemate, is not supported by both enantiomers as Cmax of F2696 fails to reach bioequivalence criteria, making more uncertain the conclusion of bioequivalence. From this experience, it seems than when equivalence is demonstrated close to the limits for the racemate, it is difficult, especially for a low variability drug such as milnacipran, to comply with equivalence criteria for both enantiomers.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 20%
Unknown 4 80%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 40%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 20%
Other 1 20%
Student > Master 1 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 20%
Chemistry 1 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 March 2022.
All research outputs
#2,066,590
of 23,376,718 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics
#11
of 434 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,035
of 34,567 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics
#2
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,376,718 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 434 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 34,567 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.