Does the placebo effect modulate drug bioavailability? Randomized cross-over studies of three drugs.

Muhammad M Hammami, Ahmed Yusuf, Faduma S Shire, Rajaa Hussein, Reem Al-Swayeh
{"title":"Does the placebo effect modulate drug bioavailability? Randomized cross-over studies of three drugs.","authors":"Muhammad M Hammami,&nbsp;Ahmed Yusuf,&nbsp;Faduma S Shire,&nbsp;Rajaa Hussein,&nbsp;Reem Al-Swayeh","doi":"10.1186/s12952-017-0075-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Medication effect is the sum of its drug, placebo, and drug*placebo interaction effects. It is conceivable that the interaction effect involves modulating drug bioavailability; it was previously observed that being aware of caffeine ingestion may prolong caffeine plasma half-life. This study was set to evaluate such concept using different drugs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Balanced single-dose, two-period, two-group, cross-over design was used to compare the pharmacokinetics of oral cephalexin, ibuprofen, and paracetamol, each described by its name (overt) or as placebo (covert). Volunteers and study coordinators were deceived as to study aim. Drug concentrations were determined blindly by in-house, high performance liquid chromatography assays. Terminal-elimination half-life (t<sub>½</sub>) (primary outcome), maximum concentration (C<sub>max</sub>), C<sub>max</sub> first time (T<sub>max</sub>), terminal-elimination-rate constant (λ), area-under-the-concentration-time-curve, to last measured concentration (AUC<sub>T</sub>), extrapolated to infinity (AUC<sub>I</sub>), or to T<sub>max</sub> of overt drug (AUC<sub>Overttmax</sub>), and C<sub>max</sub>/AUC<sub>I</sub> were calculated blindly using standard non-compartmental method. Covert-vs-overt effect on drug pharmacokinetics was evaluated by analysis-of-variance (ANOVA, primary analysis), 90% confidence interval (CI) using the 80.00-125.00% bioequivalence range, and percentage of individual pharmacokinetic covert/overt ratios that are outside the +25% range.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty, 30, and 50 healthy volunteers (18%, 10%, and 6% females, mean (SD) age 30.8 (6.2), 31.4 (6.6), and 31.2 (5.4) years) participated in 3 studies on cephalexin, ibuprofen, and paracetamol, respectively. Withdrawal rate was 4%, 0%, and 4%, respectively. Eighteen blood samples were obtained over 6, 10, and 14 h in each study period of the three drugs, respectively. ANOVA showed no significant difference in any pharmacokinetic parameter for any of the drugs. The 90% CIs for AUC<sub>T</sub>, AUC<sub>I</sub>, C<sub>max</sub>, AUC<sub>Overttmax</sub>, and C<sub>max</sub>/AUC<sub>I</sub> were within the bioequivalence range, except for ibuprofen C<sub>max</sub> (76.66-98.99), ibuprofen C<sub>max</sub>/AUC<sub>I</sub> (77.19-98.39), and ibuprofen (45.32-91.62) and paracetamol (51.45-98.96) AUC<sub>Overttmax</sub>. Out of the 126 individual covert/overt ratios, 2.0-16.7% were outside the +25% range for AUC<sub>T</sub>, 2.0-4.2% for AUC<sub>I</sub>, 25.0-44.9% for C<sub>max</sub>, 67.3-76.7% for AUC<sub>Overttmax</sub>, and 45.8-71.4% for T<sub>max</sub>.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study couldn't confirm that awareness of drug ingestion modulates its bioavailability. However, it demonstrates the trivial effect of blinding in bioequivalence studies and the extent of bio-variability that would be expected when comparing a drug product to itself.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01501747 (registered Dec 26, 2011).</p>","PeriodicalId":73849,"journal":{"name":"Journal of negative results in biomedicine","volume":"16 1","pages":"10"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s12952-017-0075-2","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of negative results in biomedicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12952-017-0075-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Medication effect is the sum of its drug, placebo, and drug*placebo interaction effects. It is conceivable that the interaction effect involves modulating drug bioavailability; it was previously observed that being aware of caffeine ingestion may prolong caffeine plasma half-life. This study was set to evaluate such concept using different drugs.

Methods: Balanced single-dose, two-period, two-group, cross-over design was used to compare the pharmacokinetics of oral cephalexin, ibuprofen, and paracetamol, each described by its name (overt) or as placebo (covert). Volunteers and study coordinators were deceived as to study aim. Drug concentrations were determined blindly by in-house, high performance liquid chromatography assays. Terminal-elimination half-life (t½) (primary outcome), maximum concentration (Cmax), Cmax first time (Tmax), terminal-elimination-rate constant (λ), area-under-the-concentration-time-curve, to last measured concentration (AUCT), extrapolated to infinity (AUCI), or to Tmax of overt drug (AUCOverttmax), and Cmax/AUCI were calculated blindly using standard non-compartmental method. Covert-vs-overt effect on drug pharmacokinetics was evaluated by analysis-of-variance (ANOVA, primary analysis), 90% confidence interval (CI) using the 80.00-125.00% bioequivalence range, and percentage of individual pharmacokinetic covert/overt ratios that are outside the +25% range.

Results: Fifty, 30, and 50 healthy volunteers (18%, 10%, and 6% females, mean (SD) age 30.8 (6.2), 31.4 (6.6), and 31.2 (5.4) years) participated in 3 studies on cephalexin, ibuprofen, and paracetamol, respectively. Withdrawal rate was 4%, 0%, and 4%, respectively. Eighteen blood samples were obtained over 6, 10, and 14 h in each study period of the three drugs, respectively. ANOVA showed no significant difference in any pharmacokinetic parameter for any of the drugs. The 90% CIs for AUCT, AUCI, Cmax, AUCOverttmax, and Cmax/AUCI were within the bioequivalence range, except for ibuprofen Cmax (76.66-98.99), ibuprofen Cmax/AUCI (77.19-98.39), and ibuprofen (45.32-91.62) and paracetamol (51.45-98.96) AUCOverttmax. Out of the 126 individual covert/overt ratios, 2.0-16.7% were outside the +25% range for AUCT, 2.0-4.2% for AUCI, 25.0-44.9% for Cmax, 67.3-76.7% for AUCOverttmax, and 45.8-71.4% for Tmax.

Conclusions: This study couldn't confirm that awareness of drug ingestion modulates its bioavailability. However, it demonstrates the trivial effect of blinding in bioequivalence studies and the extent of bio-variability that would be expected when comparing a drug product to itself.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01501747 (registered Dec 26, 2011).

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

安慰剂效应是否调节药物的生物利用度?三种药物的随机交叉研究。
背景:用药效应是其药物、安慰剂、药物*安慰剂相互作用效应的总和。可以想象,相互作用涉及调节药物的生物利用度;先前观察到,意识到咖啡因的摄入可能会延长咖啡因的血浆半衰期。本研究旨在用不同的药物来评价这一概念。方法:采用平衡的单剂量、两期、两组交叉设计,比较口服头孢氨苄、布洛芬和扑热息痛的药代动力学,每一种都用其名称(显性)或安慰剂(隐性)来描述。志愿者和研究协调员在研究目的上被欺骗了。药物浓度采用内部高效液相色谱法盲目测定。终点消除半衰期(t½)(主要终点)、最大浓度(Cmax)、Cmax首次(Tmax)、终点消除速率常数(λ)、浓度-时间曲线下面积、至最后测量浓度(AUCT)、外推至无穷大(AUCI)或显性药物的Tmax (AUCOverttmax),以及Cmax/AUCI采用标准非区室法盲目计算。通过方差分析(ANOVA,初级分析)、使用80.00-125.00%生物等效性范围的90%置信区间(CI)和超出+25%范围的个体药代动力学隐蔽/公开比率的百分比来评估隐蔽/公开对药物代动力学的影响。结果:50名、30名和50名健康志愿者(18%、10%和6%为女性,平均(SD)年龄分别为30.8(6.2)岁、31.4(6.6)岁和31.2(5.4)岁)参加了头孢氨苄、布洛芬和扑热息痛的3项研究。提现率分别为4%、0%和4%。三种药物的每个研究周期分别在6、10、14小时采集18份血样。方差分析显示,任何药物的任何药代动力学参数均无显著差异。除布洛芬Cmax(76.66 ~ 98.99)、布洛芬Cmax/AUCI(77.19 ~ 98.39)和布洛芬与扑热息痛AUCOverttmax(45.32 ~ 91.62)、扑热息痛AUCOverttmax(51.45 ~ 98.96)外,AUCT、AUCI、Cmax/AUCI的90% ci均在生物等效性范围内。在126个个体的隐蔽/公开比率中,2.0-16.7%的AUCT超出了+25%的范围,2.0-4.2%的AUCI, 25.0-44.9%的Cmax, 67.3-76.7%的AUCOverttmax, 45.8-71.4%的Tmax。结论:本研究不能证实药物摄入意识调节药物的生物利用度。然而,它证明了在生物等效性研究中盲法的微不足道的影响,以及在比较药品本身时预期的生物可变性的程度。试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov识别码:NCT01501747(2011年12月26日注册)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信