Tier 3 — preclinical

Comparative Bioavailability of Different Coenzyme Q10 Formulations in Healthy Elderly Individuals

Igor Pravst, Juan Carlos Rodríguez Aguilera, Ana Belen Cortes Rodriguez, Janja Jazbar, Igor Locatelli, Hristo Hristov, Katja Žmitek
Nutrients 2020 12(3):784

Bibliography

PubMed
PMID 32188111
PubMed Central
PMC7146408
DOI
10.3390/nu12030784
Funding
Supported by the Slovenian Research Agency research program P3-0395 and Valens Int. d.o.o. The authors state that funders had no role in implementation, data analysis or manuscript preparation.
Competing interests
The authors declared no conflict of interest.

Study snapshot

DesignRandomized, single-center, three-period crossover bioavailability study with one-week washout periods.
ModelHealthy older adults aged 65–74 years.
Sample21 participants.
InterventionSingle 100 mg-equivalent doses of Q10Vital water-soluble ubiquinone syrup (Valens), NOW Ubiquinol 100 mg capsule, and NuU Nutrition ubiquinone 100 mg capsule.
DurationSingle-dose 48-hour pharmacokinetic sampling in each of three crossover periods, separated by one-week washouts.
EndpointsBaseline-corrected AUC0-48; Baseline-corrected Cmax; Relative bioavailability; Plasma redox form of absorbed CoQ10

What the study showed, in plain terms

This crossover study directly tested whether ubiquinol is automatically more bioavailable than ubiquinone. Twenty-one adults aged 65–74 received three commercial preparations, each delivering the same nominal 100 mg CoQ10 dose.

Baseline-corrected 48-hour AUC was highest with the water-soluble Q10Vital ubiquinone formulation at 23.3, followed by ubiquinol at 15.9 and standard ubiquinone at 9.5. Relative to standard ubiquinone, Q10Vital produced a 2.4-fold higher exposure (95% CI 1.3–4.5; p=0.002). Ubiquinol produced a 1.7-fold higher exposure, but that comparison was not statistically significant (95% CI 0.9–3.1; p=0.129).

Cmax followed a similar pattern: 0.84 for water-soluble ubiquinone, 0.62 for ubiquinol and 0.41 mg/L for standard ubiquinone. Absorbed CoQ10 appeared predominantly as ubiquinol in plasma regardless of the ingested redox form. The correct conclusion is formulation-specific: delivery system can matter at least as much as whether the label says ubiquinone or ubiquinol.

Key findings

  • ΔAUC0–48 geometric mean: water-soluble Q10Vital 23.3, ubiquinol 15.9, standard ubiquinone 9.5.
  • Q10Vital vs standard ubiquinone: 2.4-fold higher exposure, 95% CI 1.3–4.5, p=0.002.
  • Ubiquinol vs standard ubiquinone: 1.7-fold higher exposure, 95% CI 0.9–3.1, p=0.129 — not statistically significant.
  • ΔCmax geometric mean: Q10Vital 0.84, ubiquinol 0.62, standard ubiquinone 0.41 mg/L.
  • Most circulating absorbed CoQ10 was present in the reduced ubiquinol state regardless of whether the ingested product contained ubiquinone or ubiquinol.

What this study can and cannot tell us

  • Only 21 older adults and single-dose pharmacokinetics; no clinical outcomes were assessed.
  • The findings compare three specific commercial formulations and should not be generalized to every ubiquinone or ubiquinol product.
  • The study received funding from Valens, associated with the water-soluble Q10Vital formulation, although authors declared no conflict and stated funders had no role in implementation or analysis.
  • Higher plasma exposure does not by itself establish superior clinical efficacy.

Citation network

Articles citing this research paper

5 articles

Biohack Blueprint analyses that reference this study in their evidence base.

Editorial review

Reviewed by the Biohack Blueprint research team

Last verified

Dr. Khaled Mahmoud, MBBChCritical Care Medicine, Longevity Science & Editorial Direction Dr. Amr Yasser, PhDCardiometabolic, Musculoskeletal, Gut & Bioavailability Dr. Abdulla Mostafa, PhDCellular Senescence, Neurological, Mitochondrial & Brain-Ageing Biology