Trial reportNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2025
Pharmacokinetic comparison of a fixed-dose combination of telmisartan/rosuvastatin/ezetimibe/amlodipine 80/20/10/5 mg and a loose-dose combination of ezetimibe/rosuvastatin 10/20 mg and telmisartan/amlodipine 80/5 mg in healthy male subjects.
Trial report in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles of a fixed-dose combination (FDC) tablet of telmisartan/rosuvastatin/ezetimibe/amlodipine 80/20/10/5 mg and a loose-dose combination (LDC) of two FDC tablets, ezetimibe/rosuvastatin 10/20 mg and telmisartan/amlodipine 80/5 mg, in healthy Korean male subjects. This study was conducted as a randomized, open-label, two-sequence, four-period crossover study. The subjects received the FDC or the LDC of telmisartan, rosuvastatin, ezetimibe, and amlodipine twice, with a 21-day washout in each period. Each sequence was composed of either FDC/LDC/FDC/LDC or LDC/FDC/LDC/FDC in that order. Serial blood samples for PK analysis were collected up to 48 h after rosuvastatin dosing and 72 h after telmisartan, ezetimibe, and amlodipine dosing. The PK parameters were calculated by a noncompartmental method, and safety profiles were evaluated throughout the study. Fifty-four healthy Korean male subjects were enrolled, and 42 subjects completed the study. The concentration‒time profiles of telmisartan, rosuvastatin, ezetimibe, and amlodipine were similar between the FDC and LDC groups. For each compound, the geometric mean ratios (90% confidence intervals) of the peak concentration and area under the plasma concentration‒time curve of FDC to LDC were within the conventional bioequivalence criteria of 0.8-1.25. Both the FDC and LDC treatments were well tolerated and determined to be safe. The FDC and LDC treatments with telmisartan, rosuvastatin, ezetimibe, and amlodipine showed pharmacokinetic bioequivalence, indicating that the FDC of telmisartan/rosuvastatin/ezetimibe/amlodipine 80/20/10/5 mg can be used as an alternative to the LDC treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39907783What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.