A Li1, V M Yuen2, S Goulay-Dufaÿ1, Y Sheng3, J F Standing4, P C L Kwok5, M K M Leung6, A S Leung6, I C K Wong1, M G Irwin2. 1. Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacy, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. 2. Department of Anaesthesiology, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. 3. UCL School of Pharmacy, University College London, London, UK. 4. Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, UK. Electronic address: j.standing@ucl.ac.uk. 5. Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacy, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong; Faculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Electronic address: philip.kwok@sydney.edu.au. 6. Department of Anaesthesiology, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Intranasal dexmedetomidine produces safe, effective sedation in children and adults. It may be administered by drops from a syringe or by nasal mucosal atomisation (MAD NasalTM). METHODS: This prospective, three-period, crossover, double-blind study compared the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) profile of i.v. administration with these two different modes of administration. In each session each subject received 1 μg kg-1 dexmedetomidine, either i.v., intranasal with the atomiser or intranasal by drops. Dexmedetomidine plasma concentration and Ramsay sedation score were used for PK/PD modelling by NONMEM. RESULTS: The i.v. route had a significantly faster onset (15 min, 95% CI 15-20 min) compared to intranasal routes by atomiser (47.5 min, 95% CI 25-135 min), and by drops (60 min, 95%CI 30-75 min), (P<0.001). There was no significant difference in sedation duration across the three treatment groups (P=0.88) nor in the median onset time between the two modes of intranasal administration (P=0.94). A 2-compartment disposition model, with transit intranasal absorption and clearance driven by cardiac output using the well-stirred liver model, was the final PK model. Intranasal bioavailability was estimated to be 40.6% (95% CI 34.7-54.4%) and 40.7% (95% CI 36.5-53.2%) for atomisation and drops respectively. Sedation score was modelled via a sigmoidal Emax model driven by an effect compartment. The effect compartment had an equilibration half time 3.3 (95% CI 1.8-4.7) min-1, and the EC50 was estimated to be 903 (95% CI 450-2344) pg ml-1. CONCLUSIONS: There is no difference in bioavailability with atomisation or nasal drops. A similar degree of sedation can be achieved by either method. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: HKUCTR-1617.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Intranasal dexmedetomidine produces safe, effective sedation in children and adults. It may be administered by drops from a syringe or by nasal mucosal atomisation (MAD NasalTM). METHODS: This prospective, three-period, crossover, double-blind study compared the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) profile of i.v. administration with these two different modes of administration. In each session each subject received 1 μg kg-1 dexmedetomidine, either i.v., intranasal with the atomiser or intranasal by drops. Dexmedetomidine plasma concentration and Ramsay sedation score were used for PK/PD modelling by NONMEM. RESULTS: The i.v. route had a significantly faster onset (15 min, 95% CI 15-20 min) compared to intranasal routes by atomiser (47.5 min, 95% CI 25-135 min), and by drops (60 min, 95%CI 30-75 min), (P<0.001). There was no significant difference in sedation duration across the three treatment groups (P=0.88) nor in the median onset time between the two modes of intranasal administration (P=0.94). A 2-compartment disposition model, with transit intranasal absorption and clearance driven by cardiac output using the well-stirred liver model, was the final PK model. Intranasal bioavailability was estimated to be 40.6% (95% CI 34.7-54.4%) and 40.7% (95% CI 36.5-53.2%) for atomisation and drops respectively. Sedation score was modelled via a sigmoidal Emax model driven by an effect compartment. The effect compartment had an equilibration half time 3.3 (95% CI 1.8-4.7) min-1, and the EC50 was estimated to be 903 (95% CI 450-2344) pg ml-1. CONCLUSIONS: There is no difference in bioavailability with atomisation or nasal drops. A similar degree of sedation can be achieved by either method. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: HKUCTR-1617.
Authors: Remco Vellinga; Beatrijs I Valk; Anthony R Absalom; Michel M R F Struys; Clemens R M Barends Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-06-17 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Shubham Chamadia; Juan C Pedemonte; Lauren E Hobbs; Hao Deng; Sarah Nguyen; Luis I Cortinez; Oluwaseun Akeju Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 7.892