AIMS: To define the relative antitussive effect of dextromethorphan (DEX) and its primary metabolite dextrorphan (DOR) after administration of DEX. METHODS: Data were analysed from a double-blind, randomized cross-over study in which 22 subjects received the following oral treatments: (i) placebo; (ii) 30 mg DEX hydro-bromide; (iii) 60 mg DEX hydro-bromide; and (iv) 30 mg DEX hydro-bromide preceded at 1 h by quinidine HCl (50 mg). Cough was elicited using citric acid challenge. Pharmacokinetic data from all non-placebo arms of the study were fitted simultaneously. The parameters were then used as covariates in a link PK-PD model of cough suppression using data from all treatment arms. RESULTS: The best-fit PK model assumed two- and one-compartment PK models for DEX and DOR, respectively, and competitive inhibition of DEX metabolism by quinidine. The intrinsic clearance of DEX estimated from the model ranged from 59 to 1536 l x h(-1), which overlapped with that extrapolated from in vitro data (12-261 l x h(-1)) and showed similar variation (26- vs. 21-fold, respectively). The inhibitory effect of quinidine ([I]/Ki) was 19 (95% confidence interval of mean: 18-20) with an estimated average Ki of 0.017 microM. Although DEX and DOR were both active, the potency of the antitussive effect of DOR was 38% that of DEX. A sustained antitussive effect was related to slow removal of DEX/DOR from the effect site (ke0 = 0.07 h(-1)). CONCLUSIONS: Physiologically based PK modelling with perturbation of metabolism using an inhibitor allowed evaluation of the antitussive potency of DOR without the need for separate administration of DOR.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: To define the relative antitussive effect of dextromethorphan (DEX) and its primary metabolite dextrorphan (DOR) after administration of DEX. METHODS: Data were analysed from a double-blind, randomized cross-over study in which 22 subjects received the following oral treatments: (i) placebo; (ii) 30 mg DEX hydro-bromide; (iii) 60 mg DEX hydro-bromide; and (iv) 30 mg DEX hydro-bromide preceded at 1 h by quinidine HCl (50 mg). Cough was elicited using citric acid challenge. Pharmacokinetic data from all non-placebo arms of the study were fitted simultaneously. The parameters were then used as covariates in a link PK-PD model of cough suppression using data from all treatment arms. RESULTS: The best-fit PK model assumed two- and one-compartment PK models for DEX and DOR, respectively, and competitive inhibition of DEX metabolism by quinidine. The intrinsic clearance of DEX estimated from the model ranged from 59 to 1536 l x h(-1), which overlapped with that extrapolated from in vitro data (12-261 l x h(-1)) and showed similar variation (26- vs. 21-fold, respectively). The inhibitory effect of quinidine ([I]/Ki) was 19 (95% confidence interval of mean: 18-20) with an estimated average Ki of 0.017 microM. Although DEX and DOR were both active, the potency of the antitussive effect of DOR was 38% that of DEX. A sustained antitussive effect was related to slow removal of DEX/DOR from the effect site (ke0 = 0.07 h(-1)). CONCLUSIONS: Physiologically based PK modelling with perturbation of metabolism using an inhibitor allowed evaluation of the antitussive potency of DOR without the need for separate administration of DOR.
Authors: T Lehr; A Staab; C Tillmann; E Ø Nielsen; D Trommeshauser; H G Schaefer; C Kloft Journal: Br J Pharmacol Date: 2007-11-05 Impact factor: 8.739
Authors: Alice Ban Ke; Srikanth C Nallani; Ping Zhao; Amin Rostami-Hodjegan; Nina Isoherranen; Jashvant D Unadkat Journal: Drug Metab Dispos Date: 2013-01-25 Impact factor: 3.922
Authors: Rob ter Heine; Lisette Binkhorst; Anne Joy M de Graan; Peter de Bruijn; Jos H Beijnen; Ron H J Mathijssen; Alwin D R Huitema Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Lei Wang; ChienWei Chiang; Hong Liang; Hengyi Wu; Weixing Feng; Sara K Quinney; Jin Li; Lang Li Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2015-10-11 Impact factor: 3.411