S Casey Laizure1, Bernd Meibohm2, Kembral Nelson1, Feng Chen1, Zhe-Yi Hu1, Robert B Parker1. 1. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee, USA. 2. Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee, USA.
Abstract
AIMS: To determine the disposition and effects of caffeine after administration using a new dosage form (AeroShot) that delivers caffeine by inspiration of a fine powder into the oral cavity and compare it to an equivalent dose of an oral solution (energy drink) as the reference standard. METHODS: Healthy human subjects (n = 17) inspired a 100 mg caffeine dose using the AeroShot device or consumed an energy drink on separate study days. Heart rate, blood pressure and subject assessments of effects were measured over an 8-h period. Plasma concentrations of caffeine and its major metabolites were determined by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. Pharmacokinetic, cardiovascular and perceived stimulant effects were compared between AeroShot and energy drink phases using a paired t test and standard bioequivalency analysis. RESULTS: Caffeine disposition was similar after caffeine administration by the AeroShot device and energy drink: peak plasma concentration 1790 and 1939 ng ml-1 , and area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) 15 579 and 17 569 ng ml-1 × h, respectively, but they were not bioequivalent: AeroShot AUC of 80.3% (confidence interval 71.2-104.7%) and peak plasma concentration of 86.3% (confidence interval 62.8-102.8%) compared to the energy drink. Female subjects did have a significantly larger AUC compared to males after consumption of the energy drink. The heart rate and blood pressure were not significantly affected by the 100 mg caffeine dose, and there were no consistently perceived stimulant effects by the subjects using visual analogue scales. CONCLUSION: Inspiration of caffeine as a fine powder using the AeroShot device produces a similar caffeine profile and effects compared to administration of an oral solution (energy drink).
AIMS: To determine the disposition and effects of caffeine after administration using a new dosage form (AeroShot) that delivers caffeine by inspiration of a fine powder into the oral cavity and compare it to an equivalent dose of an oral solution (energy drink) as the reference standard. METHODS: Healthy human subjects (n = 17) inspired a 100 mg caffeine dose using the AeroShot device or consumed an energy drink on separate study days. Heart rate, blood pressure and subject assessments of effects were measured over an 8-h period. Plasma concentrations of caffeine and its major metabolites were determined by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. Pharmacokinetic, cardiovascular and perceived stimulant effects were compared between AeroShot and energy drink phases using a paired t test and standard bioequivalency analysis. RESULTS:Caffeine disposition was similar after caffeine administration by the AeroShot device and energy drink: peak plasma concentration 1790 and 1939 ng ml-1 , and area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) 15 579 and 17 569 ng ml-1 × h, respectively, but they were not bioequivalent: AeroShot AUC of 80.3% (confidence interval 71.2-104.7%) and peak plasma concentration of 86.3% (confidence interval 62.8-102.8%) compared to the energy drink. Female subjects did have a significantly larger AUC compared to males after consumption of the energy drink. The heart rate and blood pressure were not significantly affected by the 100 mg caffeine dose, and there were no consistently perceived stimulant effects by the subjects using visual analogue scales. CONCLUSION: Inspiration of caffeine as a fine powder using the AeroShot device produces a similar caffeine profile and effects compared to administration of an oral solution (energy drink).
Authors: Gary H Kamimori; Chetan S Karyekar; Ronald Otterstetter; Donna S Cox; Thomas J Balkin; Gregory L Belenky; Natalie D Eddington Journal: Int J Pharm Date: 2002-03-02 Impact factor: 5.875
Authors: Stephen Ph Alexander; Doriano Fabbro; Eamonn Kelly; Neil Marrion; John A Peters; Helen E Benson; Elena Faccenda; Adam J Pawson; Joanna L Sharman; Christopher Southan; Jamie A Davies Journal: Br J Pharmacol Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 8.739
Authors: Angela S Attwood; Peter J Rogers; Alia F Ataya; Sally Adams; Marcus R Munafò Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2011-12-17 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Brenda M Malinauskas; Victor G Aeby; Reginald F Overton; Tracy Carpenter-Aeby; Kimberly Barber-Heidal Journal: Nutr J Date: 2007-10-31 Impact factor: 3.271
Authors: Nanci S Guest; Trisha A VanDusseldorp; Michael T Nelson; Jozo Grgic; Brad J Schoenfeld; Nathaniel D M Jenkins; Shawn M Arent; Jose Antonio; Jeffrey R Stout; Eric T Trexler; Abbie E Smith-Ryan; Erica R Goldstein; Douglas S Kalman; Bill I Campbell Journal: J Int Soc Sports Nutr Date: 2021-01-02 Impact factor: 5.150
Authors: Carlos Ruiz-Moreno; Beatriz Lara; Juan José Salinero; Diego Brito de Souza; José M Ordovás; Juan Del Coso Journal: Eur J Nutr Date: 2020-01-03 Impact factor: 5.614