Ricardo Alvarez-Jimenez1, Geert Jan Groeneveld2,3, Joop M A van Gerven2,4, Sebastiaan C Goulooze2,5, Anne Catrien Baakman2, Justin L Hay2, Jasper Stevens2. 1. Centre for Human Drug Research, 2333, CL, Leiden, the Netherlands. ralvarez@chdr.nl. 2. Centre for Human Drug Research, 2333, CL, Leiden, the Netherlands. 3. Neurology Department, VU University Medical Center, 1081, HV, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 4. Neurology Department, Leiden University Medical Center, 2333, ZA, Leiden, the Netherlands. 5. Leiden Academic Center for Drug Research, Division of Pharmacology, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Leiden University, 2333, CC, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Abstract
AIM: Subjects with increasing age are more sensitive to the effects of the anti-muscarinic agent scopolamine, which is used (among other indications) to induce temporary cognitive dysfunction in early phase drug studies with cognition enhancing compounds. The enhanced sensitivity has always been attributed to incipient cholinergic neuronal dysfunction, as a part of the normal aging process. The aim of the study was to correlate age-dependent pharmacodynamic neuro-physiologic effects of scopolamine after correcting for differences in individual exposure. METHODS: We applied a pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modelling approach to describe individual exposure and neurocognitive effects of intravenous scopolamine administration in healthy subjects. RESULTS: A two-compartment linear kinetics model best described the plasma concentrations of scopolamine. The estimated scopolamine population mean apparent central and peripheral volume of distribution was 2.66 ± 1.050 l and 62.10 ± 10.100 l, respectively and the clearance was 1.09 ± 0.096 l min(-1) . Age was not related to a decrease of performance in the tests following scopolamine administration in older subjects. Only the saccadic peak velocity showed a positive correlation between age and sensitivity to scopolamine. Age was, however, correlated at baseline with an estimated slower reaction time while performing the cognitive tests and to higher global δ and frontal θ frequency bands measured with the surface EEG. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the differences in response to scopolamine administration between young and older subjects could be explained by pharmacokinetic differences (lower clearance) and not to an enhanced sensitivity when corrected for exposure levels.
AIM: Subjects with increasing age are more sensitive to the effects of the anti-muscarinic agent scopolamine, which is used (among other indications) to induce temporary cognitive dysfunction in early phase drug studies with cognition enhancing compounds. The enhanced sensitivity has always been attributed to incipient cholinergic neuronal dysfunction, as a part of the normal aging process. The aim of the study was to correlate age-dependent pharmacodynamic neuro-physiologic effects of scopolamine after correcting for differences in individual exposure. METHODS: We applied a pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modelling approach to describe individual exposure and neurocognitive effects of intravenous scopolamine administration in healthy subjects. RESULTS: A two-compartment linear kinetics model best described the plasma concentrations of scopolamine. The estimated scopolamine population mean apparent central and peripheral volume of distribution was 2.66 ± 1.050 l and 62.10 ± 10.100 l, respectively and the clearance was 1.09 ± 0.096 l min(-1) . Age was not related to a decrease of performance in the tests following scopolamine administration in older subjects. Only the saccadic peak velocity showed a positive correlation between age and sensitivity to scopolamine. Age was, however, correlated at baseline with an estimated slower reaction time while performing the cognitive tests and to higher global δ and frontal θ frequency bands measured with the surface EEG. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the differences in response to scopolamine administration between young and older subjects could be explained by pharmacokinetic differences (lower clearance) and not to an enhanced sensitivity when corrected for exposure levels.
Authors: K A Frey; R A Koeppe; G K Mulholland; D Jewett; R Hichwa; R L Ehrenkaufer; J E Carey; D M Wieland; D E Kuhl; B W Agranoff Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 1992-01 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Vera Maria Leirer; Christian Wienbruch; Stephan Kolassa; Winfried Schlee; Thomas Elbert; Iris-Tatjana Kolassa Journal: Brain Imaging Behav Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 3.978
Authors: Ricardo Alvarez-Jimenez; Geert Jan Groeneveld; Joop M A van Gerven; Sebastiaan C Goulooze; Anne Catrien Baakman; Justin L Hay; Jasper Stevens Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2016-07-14 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Elizabeth Thomas; Peter J Snyder; Robert H Pietrzak; Colleen E Jackson; Martin Bednar; Paul Maruff Journal: Neuropsychologia Date: 2008-04-22 Impact factor: 3.139
Authors: Ricardo Alvarez-Jimenez; Geert Jan Groeneveld; Joop M A van Gerven; Sebastiaan C Goulooze; Anne Catrien Baakman; Justin L Hay; Jasper Stevens Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2016-07-14 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Anne Catrien Baakman; Ricardo Alvarez-Jimenez; Gordon Loewen; Marieke L de Kam; Karen Broekhuizen; Dana C Hilt; Geert Jan Groeneveld Journal: Alzheimers Dement (N Y) Date: 2019-04-01
Authors: Sonja Simpraga; Ricardo Alvarez-Jimenez; Huibert D Mansvelder; Joop M A van Gerven; Geert Jan Groeneveld; Simon-Shlomo Poil; Klaus Linkenkaer-Hansen Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-07-18 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Charlotte Bakker; Michiel J van Esdonk; Rik F E Stuurman; Laura G J M Borghans; Marieke L de Kam; Joop M A van Gerven; Geert Jan Groeneveld Journal: J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2021-07-29 Impact factor: 3.126