A Randomized, Two-Way Crossover Study to Evaluate the Pharmacokinetics of Caffeine Delivered Using Caffeinated Chewing Gum Versus a Marketed Caffeinated Beverage in Healthy Adult Volunteers.

Paul Sadek, Xiao Pan, Phil Shepherd, Elise Malandain, John Carney, Hugh Coleman
{"title":"A Randomized, Two-Way Crossover Study to Evaluate the Pharmacokinetics of Caffeine Delivered Using Caffeinated Chewing Gum Versus a Marketed Caffeinated Beverage in Healthy Adult Volunteers.","authors":"Paul Sadek, Xiao Pan, Phil Shepherd, Elise Malandain, John Carney, Hugh Coleman","doi":"10.1089/jcr.2017.0025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Background:</i></b> This study was conducted to compare the pharmacokinetics of caffeine delivered using caffeinated chewing gum to that delivered using a marketed caffeinated beverage (instant coffee) in 16 healthy adult volunteers. <b><i>Materials and Methods:</i></b> This was a controlled open-label, randomized, two-period crossover study. Caffeinated chewing gum and a serving of instant coffee, each containing ∼50 mg caffeine, were administered with blood samples collected before and up to 24 hours after administration starts. Plasma caffeine levels were analyzed using validated liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry methodology. <b><i>Results:</i></b> There were no statistical differences between the two caffeine products in <i>t</i><sub>max</sub> (<i>p</i> = 0.3308) and <i>k</i><sub>a</sub> (<i>p</i> = 0.3894). Although formulated at ∼50 mg caffeine each, mean dose released from chewing gum was ∼18% less than beverage. Dose-normalized area under the concentration-time curve (AUC)<sub>0-t</sub>, AUC<sub>0-∞</sub>, and <i>C</i><sub>max</sub> was similar between products. Although the criteria were not set a priori and the study was not powered for concluding bioequivalence, the 90% confidence intervals fell within the bioequivalence limit of 80% to 125%. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Existing scientific literature on caffeine, based mostly on data from caffeinated beverages, can be leveraged to support the safety of caffeine delivered by chewing gum and current maximum safe caffeine dose advice should be applicable irrespective of delivery method.</p>","PeriodicalId":89685,"journal":{"name":"Journal of caffeine research","volume":"7 4","pages":"125-132"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/74/5a/jcr.2017.0025.PMC5724581.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of caffeine research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/jcr.2017.0025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study was conducted to compare the pharmacokinetics of caffeine delivered using caffeinated chewing gum to that delivered using a marketed caffeinated beverage (instant coffee) in 16 healthy adult volunteers. Materials and Methods: This was a controlled open-label, randomized, two-period crossover study. Caffeinated chewing gum and a serving of instant coffee, each containing ∼50 mg caffeine, were administered with blood samples collected before and up to 24 hours after administration starts. Plasma caffeine levels were analyzed using validated liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry methodology. Results: There were no statistical differences between the two caffeine products in tmax (p = 0.3308) and ka (p = 0.3894). Although formulated at ∼50 mg caffeine each, mean dose released from chewing gum was ∼18% less than beverage. Dose-normalized area under the concentration-time curve (AUC)0-t, AUC0-∞, and Cmax was similar between products. Although the criteria were not set a priori and the study was not powered for concluding bioequivalence, the 90% confidence intervals fell within the bioequivalence limit of 80% to 125%. Conclusions: Existing scientific literature on caffeine, based mostly on data from caffeinated beverages, can be leveraged to support the safety of caffeine delivered by chewing gum and current maximum safe caffeine dose advice should be applicable irrespective of delivery method.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

一项随机、双向交叉研究,旨在评估使用含咖啡因口香糖和市场上销售的含咖啡因饮料向健康成人志愿者输送咖啡因的药代动力学。
研究背景本研究旨在比较在 16 名健康成年志愿者中使用含咖啡因口香糖和使用市场上销售的含咖啡因饮料(速溶咖啡)所产生的咖啡因药代动力学。材料和方法:这是一项对照、开放标签、随机、两阶段交叉研究。在开始给药前和给药后 24 小时内,分别给含咖啡因的口香糖和一份速溶咖啡(每种饮料都含有 50 毫克咖啡因)采集血液样本。采用经过验证的液相色谱法和串联质谱法分析血浆中的咖啡因含量。结果显示两种咖啡因产品的 tmax(p = 0.3308)和 ka(p = 0.3894)没有统计学差异。虽然每种口香糖的咖啡因含量为 50 毫克,但口香糖释放的平均剂量比饮料低 18%。不同产品的剂量标准化浓度曲线下面积(AUC)0-t、AUC0-∞ 和 Cmax 相似。虽然没有事先设定标准,研究也没有为得出生物等效性结论提供动力,但 90% 的置信区间在 80% 至 125% 的生物等效性范围内。结论关于咖啡因的现有科学文献主要基于含咖啡因饮料的数据,可用于支持通过口香糖提供咖啡因的安全性,而且无论采用哪种给药方式,目前的咖啡因最大安全剂量建议都应适用。
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