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.
RCT Entities:
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.
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: 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: Daniel Collado-Mateo; Ana Myriam Lavín-Pérez; Eugenio Merellano-Navarro; Juan Del Coso Journal: Nutrients Date: 2020-11-24 Impact factor: 5.717