Literature DB >> 18405786

Pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and tolerability of fentanyl following intranasal versus intravenous administration in adults undergoing third-molar extraction: a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, two-way, crossover study.

Lona L Christrup1, David Foster, Lars D Popper, Tine Troen, Richard Upton.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetic profile, as well as the efficacy and tolerability, of i.n. and i.v. administration of fentanyl in acute, episodic pain in patients undergoing third-molar extraction.
METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, 2-way, crossover study, patients were randomized to receive 1 of 4 doses (75, 100, 150, or 200 microg) by both the i.n. and i.v. routes in random order, after each of 2 separate molar extractions (interval, >or=1 week). Venous blood samples were obtained for quantification of plasma fentanyl concentrations before and at 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 12, 15, 25, 40, 60, 90, 120, and 180 minutes after administration. Pain scores (on an 11-point numeric rating scale) were recorded before and at 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, 90, 105, 120, 150, 180, 210, and 240 minutes. Patients indicated the times at which they perceived meaningful pain relief (onset of action) and at which analgesia ended (duration of effect), after which they were able to use rescue medication (time to rescue medication use).
RESULTS: A total of 24 patients were enrolled (in all, 47 extractions) (46% male; mean age, 24.1 years; 94% white, 6% Asian). Mean T(max) values were 12.8 and 6.0 minutes (P<0.001), times to onset of analgesia were 7 and 2 minutes (P<0.001), and durations of effect were 56 and 59 minutes after i.n. and i.v. administration (P=NS), respectively. Differences in the onsets and durations of analgesia after i.n. and i.v. administration of single doses were not significantly different, and neither was the difference in overall analgesia, with pain scores returning to near-predose values at statistically similar times after dosing. Duration of effect was directly related to i.n. fentanyl dose, with significantly less use of rescue medication after i.n. than after i.v. administration (P<0.005). The i.n. and i.v. formulations were both well tolerated, with similar numbers of nasally related adverse events recorded for both routes of administration.
CONCLUSIONS: Onsets and durations of analgesia were not significantly different between single doses of i.n. and i.v. fentanyl in these adults undergoing third-molar extraction. Both i.n. and i.v. administration were generally well tolerated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18405786     DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2008.03.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Ther        ISSN: 0149-2918            Impact factor:   3.393


  24 in total

Review 1.  Intranasal therapy with opioids for children and adolescents with cancer: results from clinical studies.

Authors:  Silvia Triarico; Michele Antonio Capozza; Stefano Mastrangelo; Giorgio Attinà; Palma Maurizi; Antonio Ruggiero
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2019-06-01       Impact factor: 3.603

2.  Nasal delivery of fentanyl.

Authors:  Peter Watts; Alan Smith; Michael Perelman
Journal:  Drug Deliv Transl Res       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 4.617

3.  Optimal Volume of Administration of Intranasal Midazolam in Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Daniel S Tsze; Maria Ieni; Daniel B Fenster; John Babineau; Joshua Kriger; Bruce Levin; Peter S Dayan
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  2016-11-04       Impact factor: 5.721

Review 4.  Fentanyl Formulations in the Management of Pain: An Update.

Authors:  Stephan A Schug; Sonya Ting
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 9.546

Review 5.  Differences between opioids: pharmacological, experimental, clinical and economical perspectives.

Authors:  Asbjørn M Drewes; Rasmus D Jensen; Lecia M Nielsen; Joanne Droney; Lona L Christrup; Lars Arendt-Nielsen; Julia Riley; Albert Dahan
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 4.335

6.  Intranasal Opioid Administration in Rhesus Monkeys: PET Imaging and Antinociception.

Authors:  Phillip A Saccone; Angela M Lindsey; Robert A Koeppe; Kathy A Zelenock; Xia Shao; Phillip Sherman; Carole A Quesada; James H Woods; Peter J H Scott
Journal:  J Pharmacol Exp Ther       Date:  2016-09-13       Impact factor: 4.030

7.  A physiologically-based recirculatory meta-model for nasal fentanyl in man.

Authors:  Richard N Upton; David J R Foster; Lona L Christrup; Ola Dale; Kristin Moksnes; Lars Popper
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2012-08-19       Impact factor: 2.745

Review 8.  Translational pain research: evaluating analgesic effect in experimental visceral pain models.

Authors:  Anne Estrup Olesen; Trine Andresen; Lona Louring Christrup; Richard N Upton
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2009-01-14       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 9.  [Chronic pain management].

Authors:  D Rothstein; M Zenz
Journal:  Internist (Berl)       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 0.743

Review 10.  Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic considerations in developing a response to the opioid epidemic.

Authors:  Rajiv Balyan; David Hahn; Henry Huang; Vidya Chidambaran
Journal:  Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol       Date:  2020-02-24       Impact factor: 4.481

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.