LD Suite
Levodopa Pharmacokinetic Tools
๐Ÿงฎ
Rytary Calculator
6-hour lookback window with time-weighted IR dosing. Calculates total effective LD with 200/210mg thresholds.
๐Ÿ“ˆ
Daily LD PK Simulator
24-hour plasma concentration curve. Scheduled doses + unlimited rescue doses with custom Rytary/IR mix.
โš–๏ธ
Equivalence Plot
Rytary vs Sinemet IR comparison. User-configurable doses with bidirectional equivalence calculation.
๐Ÿ”ฌ
Pulse Model
Three-pulse absorption window visualization. Rytary 580mg tri-phasic kinetics vs Sinemet 2ร—100mg.
\n\n\n", pk:"\n\n\n\n\nDaily LD PK Simulator\n\n\n\n
\n

Daily LD PK Simulator

\n
Rytary (IPX066) + IR CD-LD ยท Bateman PK ยท PD patient correction ยท All inputs update chart live
\n
\n
\n\n
\n
Peak LD
โ€”
ng/mL
\n
Min Trough
โ€”
ng/mL
\n
Time <810
โ€”
hrs/day
\n
Time >2800
โ€”
hrs/day
\n
\n\n
\n
24-Hour Levodopa Plasma Concentration
\n \n
\n
โ€”
\n
โ€”
\n
\n
\n
Rytary + rescues (total)
\n
Rytary only (no rescues)
\n
Equiv IR overlay
\n
Therapeutic โ‰ฅ810
\n
High risk โ‰ฅ2800
\n
Dysk EC50 600
\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n
\n Scheduled Doses\n \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Morning245+145+95 default
\n \n
mg
\n
\n
\n
\n
Noon245+145+95 default
\n \n
mg
\n
\n
\n
\n
Evening245+145+145 default
\n \n
mg
\n
\n
\n
\n
Bedtime245+145+95+95 default
\n \n
mg
\n
\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n Modifiers\n \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Show equivalent IR CD-LD overlayDashed yellow โ€” same LD doses, IR kinetics (sharp peaks, fast drop)
\n \n
\n
\n
High-fat breakfast with morning doseDelays Tmax +2hr, Cmax โˆ’21% (Yao et al. 2016)
\n \n
\n
\n
High-protein meal near any doseBBB amino acid competition โ†’ ~20% CNS reduction
\n \n
\n
\n
Poor sleep / high stressRaises effective thresholds ~120 ng/mL
\n \n
\n
\n
PK profile
\n \n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n Rescue / PRN Doses ยท added to main curve\n \n
\n
\n
\n
\n \n
\n
\n\n\n
\n PK model: Bateman 1-compartment, unit-corrected (mgร—1000/L = ng/mL). CL/F=56.8 L/hr, V/F=114.4 L, ke=0.497 hrโปยน (FDA NDA 203312). Rytary tri-phasic: ka_IR=3.2, ka_ER1=0.55, ka_ER2=0.18 hrโปยน (fractions 27/48/25%). IR CD-LD: ka=3.5 hrโปยน. PD correction +38% Cmax. Food effect: Yao et al. 2016. EC50: Mao et al. 2013. Semi-quantitative โ€” not a substitute for clinical judgment. Intrasubject variability ยฑ20%.\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n", pulse:"\n\n\n\n\nRytary 580mg vs Sinemet 2ร—100mg โ€” Pulse Window Model\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Rytary 580 mg ยท Three-Pulse Window Model
vs Sinemet 2ร—100 mg IR

\n
PK model from published IPX066 data ยท Absorption phases visualized ยท PD patient correction applied
\n
\n\n
\n
\n
Pulse 1 ยท IR phase (27%) ยท 0โ€“2 hr
\n
Pulse 2 ยท ER phase 1 (48%) ยท 2โ€“4 hr
\n
Pulse 3 ยท ER phase 2 (25%) ยท 4โ€“6+ hr
\n
Sinemet 2ร—100 mg IR
\n
\n\n \n
\n
โ€”
\n
โ€”
\n
\n\n
\n
Rytary 580 mg โ€” Total (fasted)
\n
Rytary 580 mg โ€” Fed (high-fat +2hr delay, โˆ’21% Cmax)
\n
Sinemet 2ร—100 mg IR (fasted)
\n
Therapeutic โ‰ฅ810 ng/mL (EC50 UPDRS)
\n
Dyskinesia EC50 โ‰ฅ600 ng/mL
\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n

Rytary 580 mg LD ยท PD Patient PK

\n
Tmax (fasted)~2โ€“2.5 hr
\n
Tmax (high-fat meal)~4.5โ€“5 hr (+2hr delay)
\n
Cmax estimate (fasted)~2,680 ng/mL
\n
Cmax (fed)~2,117 ng/mL (โˆ’21%)
\n
Duration >50% Cmax4โ€“5 hr
\n
Absorption phasesIR 27% / ER1 48% / ER2 25%
\n
Relative bioavailability vs IR~70%
\n
Terminal tยฝ1.9 hr
\n
Fluctuation index1.5 (vs 3.2 for IR)
\n
PD vs healthy Cmax+38% / AUC +44%
\n
Intrasubject variability~19% CV (low)
\n
\n
\n

Sinemet 2ร—100 mg IR ยท PD Patient PK

\n
Tmax (fasted)~1.0 hr
\n
Cmax (2ร—100 mg, est.)~2,180โ€“3,010 ng/mL
\n
Duration >50% Cmax~1.5 hr
\n
Dose-norm Cmax10.9 ng/(mLยทmg)
\n
Absolute bioavailability~84%
\n
Terminal tยฝ1.6 hr
\n
<10% peak by~5 hr
\n
Fluctuation index3.2
\n
Intrasubject variability~37% CV (higher)
\n
Equivalence basisPeak CNS effect (not duration)
\n
\n
\n\n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n
WindowTime rangeAbsorption source% of total Rytary doseApprox IR equivalentYour experiential observation
Pulse 10โ€“2 hrIR beads~27% โ†’ ~157 mg LD active~1ร— Sinemet 100 mg
(157mg ร— 31% delivery โ‰ˆ 49mg IR-equiv)
Onset comparable to Sinemet โ€” rapid initial effect
Pulse 22โ€“4 hrER phase 1~48% โ†’ ~279 mg LD active~1ร— Sinemet 100 mg sustained
(dominant plateau phase)
Sustained therapeutic effect โ€” longest window
Pulse 34โ€“6+ hrER phase 2~25% โ†’ ~145 mg LD active~ยฝโ€“1ร— Sinemet 100 mg waning
(late tail, most variable)
Late coverage โ€” most sensitive to food, GI motility, stress
Sinemet 2ร—100mg0โ€“2 hrIR only100% โ†’ 200 mg LDReferenceSharp peak, rapid decline โ€” equivalent first 2hr window to Rytary Pulse 1+early 2
\n
\n\n
\n
\n Model basis: Hsu et al. J Clin Pharmacol 2015 ยท Yao et al. Clin Neuropharmacol 2016 ยท Mittur et al. Clin Pharmacokinet 2017 ยท FDA NDA 203312 (CL/F = 56.8 L/hr, V/F = 114.4 L). PD patient correction +38% Cmax applied. EC50: Mao et al. J Clin Pharmacol 2013 (dyskinesia EC50 600 ng/mL, UPDRS EC50 810 ng/mL).

\n Pulse window model: The 2hr functional windows reflect the experiential pharmacodynamics of sequential bead-cohort gastric emptying pulses, not discrete bead-release events. Published absorption fractions (27/48/25%) are shown as shaded phase contributions to the total curve. The tartaric acid excipient in ER component 2 modulates dissolution by local intestinal pH, creating a progressive release gradient that may manifest as functionally distinct motor windows. Effect-site equilibration tยฝ ~24โ€“36 min means CNS effect lags plasma by ~30 min, further blurring phase boundaries experientially.

\n Equivalence note: Dr. Yang's equivalence claim (Rytary 580mg โ‰ˆ Sinemet 2ร—100mg) refers to comparable peak motor effect, not total exposure or duration. Rytary sustains therapeutic concentration for ~4โ€“5hr vs ~1.5hr for Sinemet. This is a semi-quantitative decision-support model โ€” not a substitute for formal PK studies or clinical judgment.\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n", equiv:"\n\n\n\n\nRytary vs Sinemet IR โ€” PK Comparison\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Rytary vs Sinemet IR

\n
Levodopa plasma concentration ยท PK model from published IPX066 data
\n
\n\n
\n
\n
\n \n
\n \n mg LD\n
\n
\n
\n \n
\n \n mg LD\n
\n
\n
\n \n
\n
\n
Rytary โ†’ IR Equivalent
\n
โ€”
\n
Peak motor effect comparable to
\n
\n
\n
IR โ†’ Rytary Equivalent
\n
โ€”
\n
Peak motor effect comparable to
\n
\n
\n
\n\n
\n \n
\n
โ€”
\n
โ€”
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n Rytary (single dose, fasted)\n
\n
\n
\n Sinemet IR (single dose, fasted)\n
\n
\n
\n Rytary (fed, high-fat meal)\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n Therapeutic window (EC50 UPDRS ~810 ng/mL threshold)\n
\n
\n
\n Dyskinesia risk (EC50 ~600 ng/mL lower bound shown)\n
\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n
\n

Rytary 580 mg LD

\n
Tmax (fasted)~2.5 hr
\n
Tmax (fed)~4.5โ€“5 hr
\n
Cmax (fasted, est.)~2680 ng/mL
\n
Duration >50% Cmax~4โ€“5 hr
\n
Absorption phasesIR 27% / ER1 48% / ER2 25%
\n
Relative bioavail.~70% vs IR
\n
tยฝ (terminal)1.9 hr
\n
\n
\n

Sinemet 200 mg IR

\n
Tmax (fasted)~1.0 hr
\n
Cmax (est.)~2188 ng/mL
\n
Duration >50% Cmax~1.5 hr
\n
Dose-norm Cmax10.9 ng/(mLยทmg)
\n
Bioavailability~84% absolute
\n
tยฝ (terminal)1.6 hr
\n
<10% peak by~5 hr
\n
\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n Model basis: Hsu et al. (J Clin Pharmacol 2015), Yao et al. (Clin Neuropharmacol 2016), Mittur et al. (Clin Pharmacokinet 2017), FDA NDA 203312. PK model uses published CL/F = 56.8 L/hr, V/F = 114.4 L, tri-phasic Rytary absorption (Ka1 back-calculated from 27%/48%/25% fraction split and published Tmax/curve shape). IR CD-LD modeled as standard 1-compartment first-order absorption/elimination. PD patient correction factor (+38% Cmax, +44% AUC vs healthy subjects) applied to both curves.

\n Equivalence claim context: Dr. Yang's equivalence of Rytary 580 mg โ‰ˆ Sinemet 2ร—100 mg refers to comparable peak motor effect, not duration or total exposure. The key difference is duration: Sinemet 2ร—100 mg sustains therapeutic levels for ~1.5 hr; Rytary 580 mg sustains them for ~4โ€“5 hr. This tool scales doses proportionally based on the 580:200 reference ratio (2.9:1). This is a semi-quantitative decision-support model โ€” not a substitute for clinical judgment.\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n" }; var home=document.getElementById('home'); var layer=document.getElementById('tool-layer'); var iframe=document.getElementById('tool-iframe'); var nameEl=document.getElementById('tool-name'); window.openTool=function(id,title){ iframe.srcdoc=TOOLS[id]; nameEl.textContent=title; home.style.display='none'; layer.classList.add('active'); if(iframe.contentWindow && iframe.contentWindow.__toolInit){ setTimeout(function(){iframe.contentWindow.__toolInit();},100); } }; window.goHome=function(){ layer.classList.remove('active'); home.style.display='flex'; iframe.srcdoc=''; nameEl.textContent=''; }; // Handle browser back button window.addEventListener('popstate',function(){ if(layer.classList.contains('active')){ goHome(); } }); // Push state when opening tool var originalOpenTool=window.openTool; window.openTool=function(id,title){ history.pushState({tool:id},'',window.location.pathname); originalOpenTool(id,title); }; })(); // Service worker registration if('serviceWorker' in navigator){ navigator.serviceWorker.register('/sw.js',{scope:'/'}).catch(function(){}); }