Jean Xavier Mazoit1, Karin Butscher, Kamran Samii. 1. Univ Paris-Sud, Laboratoire d'Anesthésie UPRES 3540, Faculté de Médecine, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, France. jean-xavier.mazoit@u-psud.fr
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is great variability in the need for morphine in the postoperative period. We performed a pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic study considering the potential effect of the two main metabolites of morphine. METHODS: Fifty patients with moderate to severe pain received morphine as an IV titration, followed by IM administration postoperatively. The plasma concentration of morphine, morphine-6-glucuronide (M-6-G), morphine-3-glucuronide (M-3-G), and pain intensity were measured at frequent intervals. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic fitting was performed with the software NONMEM. RESULTS: The pharmacokinetics were largely predictable. M-6-G and M-3-G clearances were markedly decreased in patients with renal failure. The pharmacodynamics was less predictable, with an important interindividual variability. M-6-G was 7.8 times more potent than morphine, but the average time to peak concentration in the effect compartment after a bolus injection of morphine was 4.25 h for M-6-G, when compared to 0.33 h for morphine. M-3-G showed mild inhibition of the analgesic properties of morphine and of M-6-G. The time to M-3-G peak concentration in the effect compartment after a bolus injection of morphine was 10 h. CONCLUSIONS: M-6-G is a potent opioid agonist and M-3-G a mild opioid antagonist. Both are poorly excreted in patients with renal failure. However, the metabolism of morphine was rapid when compared to the transfer of metabolites through the blood-brain barrier, which appears to be the limiting process. Because poor analgesia due to M-3-G's effect may occur in some patients after 1 or 2 days, a switch to other molecules should be considered.
BACKGROUND: There is great variability in the need for morphine in the postoperative period. We performed a pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic study considering the potential effect of the two main metabolites of morphine. METHODS: Fifty patients with moderate to severe pain received morphine as an IV titration, followed by IM administration postoperatively. The plasma concentration of morphine, morphine-6-glucuronide (M-6-G), morphine-3-glucuronide (M-3-G), and pain intensity were measured at frequent intervals. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic fitting was performed with the software NONMEM. RESULTS: The pharmacokinetics were largely predictable. M-6-G and M-3-G clearances were markedly decreased in patients with renal failure. The pharmacodynamics was less predictable, with an important interindividual variability. M-6-G was 7.8 times more potent than morphine, but the average time to peak concentration in the effect compartment after a bolus injection of morphine was 4.25 h for M-6-G, when compared to 0.33 h for morphine. M-3-G showed mild inhibition of the analgesic properties of morphine and of M-6-G. The time to M-3-G peak concentration in the effect compartment after a bolus injection of morphine was 10 h. CONCLUSIONS:M-6-G is a potent opioid agonist and M-3-G a mild opioid antagonist. Both are poorly excreted in patients with renal failure. However, the metabolism of morphine was rapid when compared to the transfer of metabolites through the blood-brain barrier, which appears to be the limiting process. Because poor analgesia due to M-3-G's effect may occur in some patients after 1 or 2 days, a switch to other molecules should be considered.
Authors: Matthias Kreuzer; Matthew A Stern; Darren Hight; Sebastian Berger; Gerhard Schneider; James W Sleigh; Paul S García Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Erik M Helander; Bethany L Menard; Chris M Harmon; Ben K Homra; Alexander V Allain; Gregory J Bordelon; Melville Q Wyche; Ira W Padnos; Anna Lavrova; Alan D Kaye Journal: Curr Pain Headache Rep Date: 2017-01
Authors: S S Lewis; M R Hutchinson; N Rezvani; L C Loram; Y Zhang; S F Maier; K C Rice; L R Watkins Journal: Neuroscience Date: 2010-01-20 Impact factor: 3.590
Authors: P M Grace; K M Ramos; K M Rodgers; X Wang; M R Hutchinson; M T Lewis; K N Morgan; J L Kroll; F R Taylor; K A Strand; Y Zhang; D Berkelhammer; M G Huey; L I Greene; T A Cochran; H Yin; D S Barth; K W Johnson; K C Rice; S F Maier; L R Watkins Journal: Neuroscience Date: 2014-09-18 Impact factor: 3.590
Authors: Katrine Rørbæk Knøsgaard; David John Richard Foster; Mads Kreilgaard; Eva Sverrisdóttir; Richard Neil Upton; Johannes N van den Anker Journal: Eur J Pharm Sci Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 4.384