J A Jung1, B M Choi, S H Cho, S M Choe, J L Ghim, H M Lee, Y J Roh, G J Noh. 1. Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 388-1 Pungnap 2-dong, Songpa-gu, Seoul 138-736, Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aims of this study were to investigate the effectiveness, safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of microemulsion propofol, Aquafol (Daewon Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd, Seoul, Republic of Korea). METHODS: In total, 288 patients were randomized to receive 1% Aquafol or 1% Diprivan (AstraZeneca, London, UK) (n=144, respectively). A 30 mg test dose of propofol was administered i.v. over 2 s for assessing injection pain. Subsequently, a bolus of propofol 2 mg kg(-1) (-30 mg) was administered. Anaesthesia was maintained with a variable rate infusion of propofol and a target-controlled infusion of remifentanil. Mean infusion rates of both formulations and times to loss of consciousness (LOC) and recovery of consciousness (ROC) were recorded. Adverse events and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics were evaluated. RESULTS:Mean infusion rate of Aquafol was not statistically different from that of Diprivan (median: 6.2 vs 6.3 mg kg(-1) h(-1)). Times to LOC and ROC were slightly prolonged in Aquafol (median: 21 vs 18 s, 12.3 vs 10.8 min). Aquafol showed similar incidence of adverse events to Diprivan. Aquafol (vs Diprivan caused more severe (median VAS: 72.0 vs 11.5 mm) and frequent (81.9 vs 29.2%) injection pain. The dose-normalized AUC(last) of Aquafol and Diprivan was 0.71 (0.19) and 0.74 (0.20) min litre(-1). The V(1) of both formulations were proportional to lean body mass. Sex was a significant covariate for k(12) and Ce(50) of Aquafol, and for k(e0) of Diprivan. CONCLUSIONS: Aquafol was as effective and safe as Diprivan, but caused more severe and frequent injection pain. Aquafol demonstrated similar pharmacokinetics to Diprivan.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The aims of this study were to investigate the effectiveness, safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of microemulsion propofol, Aquafol (Daewon Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd, Seoul, Republic of Korea). METHODS: In total, 288 patients were randomized to receive 1% Aquafol or 1% Diprivan (AstraZeneca, London, UK) (n=144, respectively). A 30 mg test dose of propofol was administered i.v. over 2 s for assessing injection pain. Subsequently, a bolus of propofol 2 mg kg(-1) (-30 mg) was administered. Anaesthesia was maintained with a variable rate infusion of propofol and a target-controlled infusion of remifentanil. Mean infusion rates of both formulations and times to loss of consciousness (LOC) and recovery of consciousness (ROC) were recorded. Adverse events and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics were evaluated. RESULTS: Mean infusion rate of Aquafol was not statistically different from that of Diprivan (median: 6.2 vs 6.3 mg kg(-1) h(-1)). Times to LOC and ROC were slightly prolonged in Aquafol (median: 21 vs 18 s, 12.3 vs 10.8 min). Aquafol showed similar incidence of adverse events to Diprivan. Aquafol (vs Diprivan caused more severe (median VAS: 72.0 vs 11.5 mm) and frequent (81.9 vs 29.2%) injection pain. The dose-normalized AUC(last) of Aquafol and Diprivan was 0.71 (0.19) and 0.74 (0.20) min litre(-1). The V(1) of both formulations were proportional to lean body mass. Sex was a significant covariate for k(12) and Ce(50) of Aquafol, and for k(e0) of Diprivan. CONCLUSIONS:Aquafol was as effective and safe as Diprivan, but caused more severe and frequent injection pain. Aquafol demonstrated similar pharmacokinetics to Diprivan.
Authors: Alireza Hassani Najafabadi; Saman Azodi-Deilami; Majid Abdouss; Hamid Payravand; Sina Farzaneh Journal: J Mater Sci Mater Med Date: 2015-03-06 Impact factor: 3.896
Authors: Se Jin Lee; Soon Im Kim; Bo Il Jung; Su Myung Lee; Mun Gyu Kim; Sun Young Park; Sang Ho Kim; Si Young Ok Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2012-06-29 Impact factor: 2.153