BACKGROUND: GPI 15715 is a new water-soluble prodrug that is hydrolyzed to release propofol. The objectives of this crossover study in volunteers were to investigate the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of GPI 15715 in comparison with propofol emulsion. METHODS: In two separate sessions, nine healthy male volunteers (19-35 yr, 70-86 kg) receivedGPI 15715 and propofol emulsion as a target controlled infusion over 60 min. In the first 20 min, the propofol target concentration increased linearly to 5 microg/ml. Subsequently, the targets were reduced to 3 microg/ml and 1.5 microg/ml for 20 min each. The plasma concentrations of GPI 15715 and propofol were measured from arterial and venous blood samples up to 24 h and pharmacokinetics were analyzed. The pharmacodynamic effect was measured by the median frequency of the power spectrum of the electroencephalogram, and a sigmoid model with effect compartment was fitted to the data. RESULTS: Compared with propofol emulsion, propofol from GPI 15715 showed a different disposition function and especially larger volumes of distribution. The propofol effect site concentration for half maximum effect was 2.0 +/- 0.5 microg/ml for GPI 15715 and 3.0 +/- 0.7 microg/ml for propofol emulsion (P < 0.05). Propofol from GPI 15715 did not show a hysteresis between plasma concentration and effect. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with propofol emulsion, propofol from GPI 15715 showed different pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, particularly a higher potency with respect to concentration. These differences may indicate an influence of the formulation.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:GPI 15715 is a new water-soluble prodrug that is hydrolyzed to release propofol. The objectives of this crossover study in volunteers were to investigate the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of GPI 15715 in comparison with propofol emulsion. METHODS: In two separate sessions, nine healthy male volunteers (19-35 yr, 70-86 kg) received GPI 15715 and propofol emulsion as a target controlled infusion over 60 min. In the first 20 min, the propofol target concentration increased linearly to 5 microg/ml. Subsequently, the targets were reduced to 3 microg/ml and 1.5 microg/ml for 20 min each. The plasma concentrations of GPI 15715 and propofol were measured from arterial and venous blood samples up to 24 h and pharmacokinetics were analyzed. The pharmacodynamic effect was measured by the median frequency of the power spectrum of the electroencephalogram, and a sigmoid model with effect compartment was fitted to the data. RESULTS: Compared with propofol emulsion, propofol from GPI 15715 showed a different disposition function and especially larger volumes of distribution. The propofol effect site concentration for half maximum effect was 2.0 +/- 0.5 microg/ml for GPI 15715 and 3.0 +/- 0.7 microg/ml for propofol emulsion (P < 0.05). Propofol from GPI 15715 did not show a hysteresis between plasma concentration and effect. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with propofol emulsion, propofol from GPI 15715 showed different pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, particularly a higher potency with respect to concentration. These differences may indicate an influence of the formulation.
Authors: Timothy E Morey; Jerome H Modell; Dushyant Shekhawat; Todd Grand; Dinesh O Shah; Nikolaus Gravenstein; Susan P McGorray; Donn M Dennis Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Ellen L Air; Elena Ryapolova-Webb; Coralie de Hemptinne; Jill L Ostrem; Nicholas B Galifianakis; Paul S Larson; Edward F Chang; Philip A Starr Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2012-05-26 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Shoichi A Shimamoto; Elena S Ryapolova-Webb; Jill L Ostrem; Nicholas B Galifianakis; Kai J Miller; Philip A Starr Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2013-04-24 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: François Ravenelle; Sandra Gori; Dorothée Le Garrec; David Lessard; Laibin Luo; Dana Palusova; J Robert Sneyd; Damon Smith Journal: Pharm Res Date: 2007-11-21 Impact factor: 4.200
Authors: Nicole C Swann; Coralie de Hemptinne; Ryan B Maher; Catherine A Stapleton; Lingzhong Meng; Adrian W Gelb; Philip A Starr Journal: J Cogn Neurosci Date: 2015-09-24 Impact factor: 3.225