Comparison of caffeine disposition following administration by oral solution (energy drink) and inspired powder (AeroShot) in human subjects

Steven Laizure, Bernd Meibohm, Kembral Nelson, Feng Chen, Zhe Yi Hu, Robert Parker

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

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).

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2687-2694
Number of pages8
JournalBritish Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
Volume83
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2017

Fingerprint

Energy Drinks
Caffeine
Powders
Oral Administration
Area Under Curve
Equipment and Supplies
Heart Rate
Confidence Intervals
Blood Pressure
Dosage Forms
Visual Analog Scale
Mouth
Spectrum Analysis
Healthy Volunteers
Pharmacokinetics

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Pharmacology
  • Pharmacology (medical)

Cite this

@article{8e1ae73c64654e6fa599bce30b9e0fac,
title = "Comparison of caffeine disposition following administration by oral solution (energy drink) and inspired powder (AeroShot) in human subjects",
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).",
author = "Steven Laizure and Bernd Meibohm and Kembral Nelson and Feng Chen and Hu, {Zhe Yi} and Robert Parker",
year = "2017",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/bcp.13389",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "83",
pages = "2687--2694",
journal = "British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology",
issn = "0306-5251",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of caffeine disposition following administration by oral solution (energy drink) and inspired powder (AeroShot) in human subjects

AU - Laizure, Steven

AU - Meibohm, Bernd

AU - Nelson, Kembral

AU - Chen, Feng

AU - Hu, Zhe Yi

AU - Parker, Robert

PY - 2017/12/1

Y1 - 2017/12/1

N2 - 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).

AB - 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).

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85028776087&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85028776087&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/bcp.13389

DO - 10.1111/bcp.13389

M3 - Article

C2 - 28758694

AN - SCOPUS:85028776087

VL - 83

SP - 2687

EP - 2694

JO - British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

JF - British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

SN - 0306-5251

IS - 12

ER -