Premium
Pharmacokinetic Profile of Rizatriptan 10‐mg Tablet and 10‐mg Orally Disintegrating Tablet Administered With or Without Water in Healthy Subjects: An Open‐Label, Randomized, Single‐Dose, 3‐Period Crossover Study
Author(s) -
Swan Suzanne K.,
Alcorn Harry,
Rodgers Anthony,
Hustad Carolyn M.,
Ramsey Karen E.,
Woll Susan,
Skobieranda Franck
Publication year - 2006
Publication title -
the journal of clinical pharmacology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.92
H-Index - 116
eISSN - 1552-4604
pISSN - 0091-2700
DOI - 10.1177/0091270005284194
Subject(s) - rizatriptan , crossover study , pharmacokinetics , geometric mean , pharmacology , medicine , dosing , absorption (acoustics) , mathematics , materials science , placebo , statistics , receptor , alternative medicine , pathology , sumatriptan , agonist , composite material
This open‐label, 3‐period crossover study compared the plasma concentration profiles of rizatriptan tablet, orally disintegrating tablet with water (ODTc), and ODT without water (ODTs) in 24 healthy volunteers aged 18 to 45 years. At each period, subjects received a single dose of either 10‐mg rizatriptan tablet, 10‐mg rizatriptan ODTs, or 10‐mg rizatriptan ODTc. The authors hypothesized that ODTc has a greater geometric mean AUC 0–2h than ODTs and that ODTc has a greater geometric mean AUC 0–1h than tablet. A secondary end point was to compare the time of occurrence of the maximum rizatriptan plasma concentration (t max ) of each dosing method. ODTc had a statistically significantly greater geometric mean AUC 0–2h compared with ODTs (33.84 h•ng/mL vs 18.83h•ng/mL;P < .001). ODTc had a slightly, but not statistically significantly, greater geometric mean AUC 0–1h compared with rizatriptan tablet (17.07h•ng/mL vs 13.32 h•ng/mL). The median t max was 0.67 hours for ODTc and tablet and 1.33 hours for ODTs. ODTc showed a slightly, but not significantly, faster rate of absorption compared with tablet. ODTs with water had a faster rate of absorption than ODTc. Future studies are needed to determine whether this pharmacokinetic difference produces differential efficacy in a clinical setting.