Suppr超能文献

低剂量甲氨蝶呤生物利用度的比较:口服液、口服片剂、皮下注射和肌肉注射给药。

A comparison of low dose methotrexate bioavailability: oral solution, oral tablet, subcutaneous and intramuscular dosing.

作者信息

Jundt J W, Browne B A, Fiocco G P, Steele A D, Mock D

机构信息

Department of Internal Medicine, Scott and White Clinic and Memorial Hospital, Temple, TX 76508.

出版信息

J Rheumatol. 1993 Nov;20(11):1845-9.

PMID:8308768
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the relative bioavailability of low dose methotrexate (MTX) administered as tablet, oral solution, and subcutaneous (sc) injection to that of intramuscular (im) injection in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Twelve patients meeting the American College of Rheumatology criteria for RA had serial blood MTX concentration samples drawn over a 24-h period after receiving their normal weekly MTX dose. Relative bioavailability (F) of the tablet and oral solution formulations was determined by comparison of the area under the time-versus-serum-concentration curves (AUC) for the 2 different oral formulations as a percentage of the AUC for im injection. Also, relative bioavailability of the sc formulation was compared to im in 6 of the patients.

RESULTS

Mean F for the oral tablet was 0.85, while that for the oral solution was 0.87. Both oral formulations showed a statistically significant difference in mean F when compared to im (tablet vs im, p = 0.002, oral solution vs im, p = 0.009). No statistically significant difference, however, was found in mean relative bioavailability between tablet and solution (p = 0.744). The mean F for sc was 0.97; no statistically significant difference existed between the mean F values for the sc and im routes of administration (p = 0.657).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest the oral solution may be substituted for tablet dosing and sc injection substituted for im. Thus, a variety of different dosing methodologies may be considered providing the most appropriate route in each patient, given issues of compliance, medication cost, and preference.

摘要

目的

比较低剂量甲氨蝶呤(MTX)片剂、口服溶液和皮下注射给药相对于类风湿关节炎(RA)患者肌内注射给药的相对生物利用度。

方法

12名符合美国风湿病学会RA标准的患者在接受常规每周MTX剂量后24小时内采集系列血MTX浓度样本。通过比较两种不同口服制剂的时间-血清浓度曲线下面积(AUC)与肌内注射AUC的百分比,确定片剂和口服溶液制剂的相对生物利用度(F)。此外,在6名患者中比较了皮下制剂与肌内注射的相对生物利用度。

结果

口服片剂的平均F为0.85,口服溶液的平均F为0.87。与肌内注射相比,两种口服制剂的平均F均有统计学显著差异(片剂与肌内注射,p = 0.002;口服溶液与肌内注射,p = 0.009)。然而,片剂和溶液之间的平均相对生物利用度无统计学显著差异(p = 0.744)。皮下注射的平均F为0.97;皮下注射和肌内注射给药途径的平均F值之间无统计学显著差异(p = 0.657)。

结论

我们的数据表明,口服溶液可替代片剂给药,皮下注射可替代肌内注射。因此,考虑到依从性、药物成本和偏好等问题,在每个患者中可采用多种不同给药方法以提供最合适的途径。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验