Ida Tylleskar1, Arne Kristian Skulberg1,2, Turid Nilsen1, Sissel Skarra1, Phatsawee Jansook3, Ola Dale4,5. 1. Department of Circulation and Medical Imaging, NTNU, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway. 2. Division of Emergencies and Critical Care, Department of Anaesthesiology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. 3. Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. 4. Department of Circulation and Medical Imaging, NTNU, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway. ola.dale@ntnu.no. 5. Department of Research and Development, St. Olav's University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway. ola.dale@ntnu.no.
Abstract
PURPOSE:Nasal naloxone is wanted for bystander administration in opioid overdose and as a needle-free alternative for emergency medical personnel. Epidemiologic studies have indicated a therapeutic effect of bystander administration of low-concentration/high-volume formulations. The objective for this study was to describe the nasal pharmacokinetics of a new high-concentration/low-volume nasal formulation of naloxone. METHODS: This was an open, randomized triple crossover trial in healthy, human volunteers (n = 12) where two doses of nasal naloxone (0.8 and 1.6 mg) and one intravenous dose (1.0 mg) were compared. Fifteen serum samples were collected before and until 6 h after naloxone administration. Quantification of naloxone was performed by a validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method. RESULTS:Bioavailability was 0.54 (0.45-0.63) for the 0.8 mg and 0.52 (0.37-0.67) for the 1.6 mg nasal naloxone formulation. Maximum concentration levels (C max) were 1.45 ng/ml (1.07-1.84) for 0.8 mg and 2.57 ng/ml (1.49-3.66) for the 1.6 mg. Time to maximum concentrations (T max) were reached at 17.9 min (11.4-24.5) and 18.6 min (14.4-22.9) for the 0.8 mg and the 1.6 mg doses, respectively. CONCLUSION: This nasal naloxone formulation had a rapid, systemic uptake and higher bioavailability than naloxone formulations not designed for IN use. This indicates that an optimized high-concentration/low-volume nasal spray formulation may deliver a therapeutic dose. The 1.6 mg nasal dose provided serum concentrations that surpassed those of 1.0 mg IV after 15-20 min and stayed above for the rest of the study period.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Nasal naloxone is wanted for bystander administration in opioid overdose and as a needle-free alternative for emergency medical personnel. Epidemiologic studies have indicated a therapeutic effect of bystander administration of low-concentration/high-volume formulations. The objective for this study was to describe the nasal pharmacokinetics of a new high-concentration/low-volume nasal formulation of naloxone. METHODS: This was an open, randomized triple crossover trial in healthy, human volunteers (n = 12) where two doses of nasal naloxone (0.8 and 1.6 mg) and one intravenous dose (1.0 mg) were compared. Fifteen serum samples were collected before and until 6 h after naloxone administration. Quantification of naloxone was performed by a validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method. RESULTS: Bioavailability was 0.54 (0.45-0.63) for the 0.8 mg and 0.52 (0.37-0.67) for the 1.6 mg nasal naloxone formulation. Maximum concentration levels (C max) were 1.45 ng/ml (1.07-1.84) for 0.8 mg and 2.57 ng/ml (1.49-3.66) for the 1.6 mg. Time to maximum concentrations (T max) were reached at 17.9 min (11.4-24.5) and 18.6 min (14.4-22.9) for the 0.8 mg and the 1.6 mg doses, respectively. CONCLUSION: This nasal naloxone formulation had a rapid, systemic uptake and higher bioavailability than naloxone formulations not designed for IN use. This indicates that an optimized high-concentration/low-volume nasal spray formulation may deliver a therapeutic dose. The 1.6 mg nasal dose provided serum concentrations that surpassed those of 1.0 mg IV after 15-20 min and stayed above for the rest of the study period.
Authors: Jonathonm Dowling; Geoffrey K Isbister; Carl M J Kirkpatrick; Daya Naidoo; Andis Graudins Journal: Ther Drug Monit Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 3.681
Authors: Erik D Barton; Christopher B Colwell; Timothy Wolfe; Dave Fosnocht; Craig Gravitz; Tamara Bryan; Will Dunn; Jeff Benson; Jeff Bailey Journal: J Emerg Med Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 1.484
Authors: Anne-Maree Kelly; Debra Kerr; Paul Dietze; Ian Patrick; Tony Walker; Zeff Koutsogiannis Journal: Med J Aust Date: 2005-01-03 Impact factor: 7.738
Authors: Jarkko Johansson; Jussi Hirvonen; Zsófia Lovró; Laura Ekblad; Valtteri Kaasinen; Olli Rajasilta; Semi Helin; Jouni Tuisku; Saija Sirén; Mirka Pennanen; Arvind Agrawal; Roger Crystal; Petri J Vainio; Hannu Alho; Mika Scheinin Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2019-03-13 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Joanne Neale; Adrian Farrugia; Aimee N Campbell; Paul Dietze; Robyn Dwyer; Renae Fomiatti; Jermaine D Jones; Sandra D Comer; Suzanne Fraser; John Strang Journal: Drugs (Abingdon Engl) Date: 2021-02-22
Authors: Rebecca McDonald; Ulrike Lorch; Jo Woodward; Björn Bosse; Helen Dooner; Gill Mundin; Kevin Smith; John Strang Journal: Addiction Date: 2017-11-16 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Sari Castrén; Niklas Mäkelä; Janne Haikola; Anne H Salonen; Roger Crystal; Mika Scheinin; Hannu Alho Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-08-21 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Randy So; Yazid Al Hamarneh; Mark Barnes; Michael A Beazely; Michael Boivin; Julie Laroche; Harsit Patel; Aaron Sihota; Tim Smith; Ross T Tsuyuki Journal: Can Pharm J (Ott) Date: 2020-09-21