TY - JOUR
T1 - Influence of different fat emulsion-based intravenous formulations on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of propofol
AU - Cox, E. H.
AU - Knibbe, C. A.
AU - Koster, V. S.
AU - Langemeijer, M. W.
AU - Tukker, E. E.
AU - Lange, R.
AU - Kuks, P. F.
AU - Langemeijer, H. J.
AU - Lie-A-Huen, L.
AU - Danhof, M.
PY - 1998
Y1 - 1998
N2 - PURPOSE: The influence of different intravenous formulations on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of propofol was investigated using the effect on the EEG (11.5-30 Hz) as pharmacodynamic endpoint. METHODS: Propofol was administered as an intravenous bolus infusion (30 mg/kg in 5 min) or as a continuous infusion (150 mg/kg in 5 hours) in chronically instrumented male rats. Propofol was formulated as a 1% emulsion in an Intralipid 10%-like fat emulsion (Diprivan-10, D) or as a 1%- or 6% emulsion in Lipofundin MCT/LCT-10% (P1% and P6%, respectively). EEG was recorded continuously and arterial blood samples were collected serially for the determination of propofol concentrations using HPLC. RESULTS: Following bolus infusion, the pharmacokinetics of the various propofol emulsions could adequately be described by a two-compartmental pharmacokinetic model. The average values for clearance (Cl), volume of distribution at steady-state (Vd,ss) and terminal half-life (t1/2, lambda 2) were 107 +/- 4 ml/min/kg, 1.38 +/- 0.06 l/kg and 16 +/- 1 min, respectively (mean +/- S.E. n = 22). No significant differences were observed between the three propofol formulations. After continuous infusion these values were 112 +/- 11 ml/min/kg, 5.19 +/- 0.41 l/kg and 45 +/- 3 min, respectively (mean +/- S.E., n = 20) with again no statistically significant differences between the three propofol formulations. Comparison between the bolus- and the continuous infusion revealed a statistically significant difference for both Vd,ss and t1/2, lambda 2 (p <0.05), whereas Cl remained unchanged. In all treatment groups infusion of propofol resulted in a burst-suppression type of EEG. A profound hysteresis loop was observed between blood concentrations and EEG effect for all formulations. The hysteresis was minimized by a semi-parametric method and resulted in a biphasic concentration-effect relationship of propofol that was described non-parametrically. For P6% a larger rate constant onset of drug effect (t1/2,keo) was observed compared to the other propofol formulations (p <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of propofol are not affected by to a large extent the type of emulsion nor by the concentration of propofol in the intravenous formulation
AB - PURPOSE: The influence of different intravenous formulations on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of propofol was investigated using the effect on the EEG (11.5-30 Hz) as pharmacodynamic endpoint. METHODS: Propofol was administered as an intravenous bolus infusion (30 mg/kg in 5 min) or as a continuous infusion (150 mg/kg in 5 hours) in chronically instrumented male rats. Propofol was formulated as a 1% emulsion in an Intralipid 10%-like fat emulsion (Diprivan-10, D) or as a 1%- or 6% emulsion in Lipofundin MCT/LCT-10% (P1% and P6%, respectively). EEG was recorded continuously and arterial blood samples were collected serially for the determination of propofol concentrations using HPLC. RESULTS: Following bolus infusion, the pharmacokinetics of the various propofol emulsions could adequately be described by a two-compartmental pharmacokinetic model. The average values for clearance (Cl), volume of distribution at steady-state (Vd,ss) and terminal half-life (t1/2, lambda 2) were 107 +/- 4 ml/min/kg, 1.38 +/- 0.06 l/kg and 16 +/- 1 min, respectively (mean +/- S.E. n = 22). No significant differences were observed between the three propofol formulations. After continuous infusion these values were 112 +/- 11 ml/min/kg, 5.19 +/- 0.41 l/kg and 45 +/- 3 min, respectively (mean +/- S.E., n = 20) with again no statistically significant differences between the three propofol formulations. Comparison between the bolus- and the continuous infusion revealed a statistically significant difference for both Vd,ss and t1/2, lambda 2 (p <0.05), whereas Cl remained unchanged. In all treatment groups infusion of propofol resulted in a burst-suppression type of EEG. A profound hysteresis loop was observed between blood concentrations and EEG effect for all formulations. The hysteresis was minimized by a semi-parametric method and resulted in a biphasic concentration-effect relationship of propofol that was described non-parametrically. For P6% a larger rate constant onset of drug effect (t1/2,keo) was observed compared to the other propofol formulations (p <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of propofol are not affected by to a large extent the type of emulsion nor by the concentration of propofol in the intravenous formulation
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011980432646
DO - https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011980432646
M3 - Article
C2 - 9563075
SN - 0724-8741
VL - 15
SP - 442
EP - 448
JO - Pharmaceutical research
JF - Pharmaceutical research
IS - 3
ER -