Drover David R, Angst Martin S, Valle Marta, Ramaswamy Bhamini, Naidu Sujata, Stanski Donald R, Verotta Davide
Department of Anesthesia, Stanford University School of Medicine, California 94305-5940, USA.
Anesthesiology. 2002 Oct;97(4):827-36. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200210000-00013.
To compare the pharmacokinetics of intravenous, oral immediate-release (IR), and oral extended-release (OROS ) formulations of hydromorphone.
In this randomized, six-session, crossover-design study, 12 subjects received hydromorphone 8-mg intravenous, 8-mg IR oral, and 8-, 16-, and 32-mg OROS formulations or placebo orally followed by plasma sampling for hydromorphone determination. Pharmacokinetic analysis was performed using NONMEM. Using the disposition of hydromorphone from the intravenous administration, deconvolution was used to estimate the input rate function (release rate from the gut to the blood) for the IR and OROS formulations. A linear spline was used to describe the drug input rate function.
The deconvolution using linear splines described the release characteristics of both the IR and OROS formulations. The mean absolute bioavailability for the 8-mg OROS formulation was significantly larger ( = 0.025) than for the 8-mg IR formulation: 0.24 (SD 0.059) versus 0.19 (SD 0.054), respectively. The bioavailability was the same for the three doses of the OROS formulation. Predicted degree of fluctuation of plasma concentrations would be expected to be 130% and 39% for the IR and OROS 8-mg doses, respectively.
The OROS formulation of hydromorphone produced continued release of medication over 24 h, which should allow for once-daily oral dosing. The extended release of hydromorphone will produce less fluctuation of plasma concentrations compared with IR formulations, which should provide for more constant pain control. The in vivo release of hydromorphone from both IR and OROS formulations were adequately described using a linear spline deconvolution approach. The increased bioavailability from the OROS formulation may be related to decreased metabolism by a first-pass effect or enterohepatic recycling of hydromorphone.
比较氢吗啡酮静脉注射制剂、口服速释(IR)制剂和口服缓释(OROS)制剂的药代动力学。
在这项随机、六阶段、交叉设计研究中,12名受试者接受8毫克氢吗啡酮静脉注射、8毫克IR口服、8毫克、16毫克和32毫克OROS制剂或口服安慰剂,随后采集血浆样本以测定氢吗啡酮。使用NONMEM进行药代动力学分析。利用静脉给药后氢吗啡酮的处置情况,采用反卷积法估算IR和OROS制剂的输入速率函数(从肠道到血液的释放速率)。使用线性样条描述药物输入速率函数。
采用线性样条的反卷积法描述了IR和OROS制剂的释放特性。8毫克OROS制剂的平均绝对生物利用度显著高于8毫克IR制剂(P = 0.025):分别为0.24(标准差0.059)和0.19(标准差0.054)。三种剂量的OROS制剂生物利用度相同。预计IR和8毫克OROS剂量的血浆浓度波动程度分别为130%和39%。
氢吗啡酮的OROS制剂在24小时内持续释放药物,这应允许每日一次口服给药。与IR制剂相比,氢吗啡酮的缓释将使血浆浓度波动更小,这应能提供更稳定的疼痛控制。采用线性样条反卷积法能充分描述IR和OROS制剂中氢吗啡酮的体内释放情况。OROS制剂生物利用度的提高可能与首过效应导致的代谢降低或氢吗啡酮的肠肝循环有关。