Suppr超能文献

采用群体药代动力学方法比较依托泊苷口服和静脉给药。

Population pharmacokinetic approach to compare oral and i.v. administration of etoposide.

作者信息

Würthwein G, Krümpelmann S, Tillmann B, Real E, Schulze-Westhoff P, Jürgens H, Boos J

机构信息

Department of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, University of Münster, Germany.

出版信息

Anticancer Drugs. 1999 Oct;10(9):807-14. doi: 10.1097/00001813-199910000-00003.

Abstract

The antitumor effect of etoposide (ETO) may be related to duration of exposure to a relatively low serum level while myelosuppression may be dependent on peak ETO serum levels. With regard to such therapeutic ranges, duration of exposure to predefined plasma ETO concentration ranges and the related AUC (expressed as percent of total AUC, pAUC) were used to compare pharmacokinetic profiles after oral and short time i.v. (1 h infusion) administration of identical ETO doses (100 mg/m2). Patients included in this study received i.v. (18 patients, short-term infusions) or oral (16 patients) ETO on different treatment schedules. Plasma ETO concentrations were determined by HPLC and population pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated (P-Pharm 1.4). Despite an 'apparent bioavailability' of 59%, oral administration of ETO was associated with the same time of exposure to a predefined 'therapeutic range' of 0.5-3 mg/l and a significantly higher pAUC compared to i.v. administration. By contrast, time of exposure to the probably more myelotoxic concentration range above 3 mg/l was significantly shorter and the related pAUC was highly significantly lower after oral than after i.v. administration. These findings demonstrate that oral ETO therapy is at least equivalent to short time i.v. therapy in terms of achieving specific target concentration ranges and avoiding peak concentrations.

摘要

依托泊苷(ETO)的抗肿瘤作用可能与相对低血清水平的暴露持续时间有关,而骨髓抑制可能取决于ETO血清峰值水平。关于此类治疗范围,使用暴露于预定义血浆ETO浓度范围的持续时间及相关曲线下面积(以总曲线下面积的百分比表示,pAUC)来比较相同剂量ETO(100mg/m²)口服和静脉短时间(1小时输注)给药后的药代动力学特征。本研究纳入的患者按不同治疗方案接受静脉(18例患者,短期输注)或口服(16例患者)ETO。通过高效液相色谱法测定血浆ETO浓度并计算群体药代动力学参数(P-Pharm 1.4)。尽管ETO的“表观生物利用度”为59%,但与静脉给药相比,口服ETO与暴露于0.5 - 3mg/l预定义“治疗范围”的时间相同,且pAUC显著更高。相比之下,口服给药后暴露于可能更具骨髓毒性的高于3mg/l浓度范围的时间显著更短,且相关pAUC显著低于静脉给药。这些发现表明,在达到特定目标浓度范围和避免峰值浓度方面,口服ETO治疗至少等同于静脉短时间治疗。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验