Pace D G, Reele S B, Rozik L M, Rogers-Phillips C A, Dabice J A, Givens S V
Department of Clinical Research and Development, Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc., Nutley, NJ 07110.
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1988 Aug;44(2):137-44. doi: 10.1038/clpt.1988.128.
To compare the relative merits of two different administration regimens, tyramine was administered intravenously in ascending doses to 12 healthy subjects to raise systolic blood pressure slightly more than 30 mm Hg. Six subjects received tyramine by bolus injection and six other subjects received tyramine by infusion. The bolus dose of tyramine needed was 4.34 +/- 1.51 mg (X +/- SD) and the infusion rate needed was 1.11 +/- 0.33 mg/min. Four blood pressure response patterns to continuous tyramine infusion were observed. Because different units were measured for the quantity of tyramine administered, the between-subject variance estimate to within-subject variance estimate ratios were calculated. The two techniques had equivalent consistency. With the bolus method, in contrast to the infusion procedure, the dose-response relationship was obvious in most subjects. Therefore the bolus method was judged to be more useful than the infusion method.
为比较两种不同给药方案的相对优缺点,对12名健康受试者静脉注射递增剂量的酪胺,以使收缩压升高略超过30 mmHg。6名受试者接受推注给药,另外6名受试者接受输注给药。所需酪胺的推注剂量为4.34±1.51 mg(X±SD),所需输注速率为1.11±0.33 mg/min。观察到对持续输注酪胺的四种血压反应模式。由于所给予的酪胺量采用了不同的单位,因此计算了受试者间方差估计值与受试者内方差估计值的比率。两种技术具有同等的一致性。与输注方法相比,采用推注法时,大多数受试者的剂量反应关系明显。因此,判断推注法比输注法更有用。