Michel Arvidsson1, Marja-Liisa Dahl2, Olof Beck2, Gerd Ackehed2, Karin Nordin2, Staffan Rosenborg2. 1. Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, and Karolinska University Laboratory, Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge, SE-141 86, Stockholm, Sweden. michel.arvidsson@ki.se. 2. Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, and Karolinska University Laboratory, Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge, SE-141 86, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The primary aim of this study was to explore the potential of alternative sampling matrices for methylphenidate by assessing the correlations between dl-threo-methylphenidate and dl-threo-ritalinic acid concentrations in exhaled breath and oral fluid with those in plasma, in repeated samples collected after a single oral dose of methylphenidate. The secondary aim was to study the enantioselective pharmacokinetics of methylphenidate in plasma, with a focus on interindividual variability in the metabolism of methylphenidate to ritalinic acid. METHODS: Twelve healthy volunteers received a single oral dose of dl-threo-methylphenidate (Ritalin® capsules, 20 mg). Venous blood samples were collected for 24 h, and plasma analyzed for threo-enantiomers of methylphenidate and ritalinic acid with LC-MS/MS. Repeated sampling of exhaled breath, using a particle filter device, and of non-stimulated oral fluid, using a felt pad device, was also performed. Exhaled breath and oral fluid were analyzed with a non-enantioselective LC-MS/MS method for dl-threo-methylphenidate and dl-threo-ritalinic acid. RESULTS: In all subjects, d-threo-methylphenidate was detectable in plasma for at least 15 h after the dose with a biphasic profile. l-threo-Methylphenidate was measurable in only five subjects and in most cases in low concentrations. However, one female subject displayed a biphasic concentration-time profile for l-threo-methylphenidate. This subject also had the highest d-threo-methylphenidate AUC (191 ng*h/mL versus 32-119 ng*h/mL in the other subjects). d-threo-Ritalinic acid concentrations were on average 25-fold higher (range 6-126) than the corresponding d-threo-methylphenidate concentrations. Single-time point plasma concentration ratios between d-threo-ritalinic acid and d-threo-methylphenidate 1.5-12 h after dose correlated highly (r = 0.88-0.98) with the d-threo-ritalinic acid AUC/d-threo-methylphenidate AUC ratio. In eleven subjects, dl-threo-methylphenidate in oral fluid mirrored the biphasic profile of methylphenidate (sum of d- and l-threo-enantiomers) in plasma, but the concentrations in oral fluid were on average 1.8 times higher than in plasma. dl-threo-Methylphenidate was detected in exhaled breath in all subjects, but there was no consistent concentration-time pattern. CONCLUSIONS: In some subjects, the pharmacologically less active l-threo-enantiomer may contribute to the total plasma methylphenidate concentrations. Monitoring methylphenidate concentrations without enantiomeric determination carries the risk of missing such subjects, which might affect how the plasma concentrations of methylphenidate are interpreted and used for clinical decision making. The use of exhaled breath and oral fluid to assess medication adherence to MPH in patients with ADHD warrants further studies.
PURPOSE: The primary aim of this study was to explore the potential of alternative sampling matrices for methylphenidate by assessing the correlations between dl-threo-methylphenidate and dl-threo-ritalinic acid concentrations in exhaled breath and oral fluid with those in plasma, in repeated samples collected after a single oral dose of methylphenidate. The secondary aim was to study the enantioselective pharmacokinetics of methylphenidate in plasma, with a focus on interindividual variability in the metabolism of methylphenidate to ritalinic acid. METHODS: Twelve healthy volunteers received a single oral dose of dl-threo-methylphenidate (Ritalin® capsules, 20 mg). Venous blood samples were collected for 24 h, and plasma analyzed for threo-enantiomers of methylphenidate and ritalinic acid with LC-MS/MS. Repeated sampling of exhaled breath, using a particle filter device, and of non-stimulated oral fluid, using a felt pad device, was also performed. Exhaled breath and oral fluid were analyzed with a non-enantioselective LC-MS/MS method for dl-threo-methylphenidate and dl-threo-ritalinic acid. RESULTS: In all subjects, d-threo-methylphenidate was detectable in plasma for at least 15 h after the dose with a biphasic profile. l-threo-Methylphenidate was measurable in only five subjects and in most cases in low concentrations. However, one female subject displayed a biphasic concentration-time profile for l-threo-methylphenidate. This subject also had the highest d-threo-methylphenidate AUC (191 ng*h/mL versus 32-119 ng*h/mL in the other subjects). d-threo-Ritalinic acid concentrations were on average 25-fold higher (range 6-126) than the corresponding d-threo-methylphenidate concentrations. Single-time point plasma concentration ratios between d-threo-ritalinic acid and d-threo-methylphenidate 1.5-12 h after dose correlated highly (r = 0.88-0.98) with the d-threo-ritalinic acid AUC/d-threo-methylphenidate AUC ratio. In eleven subjects, dl-threo-methylphenidate in oral fluid mirrored the biphasic profile of methylphenidate (sum of d- and l-threo-enantiomers) in plasma, but the concentrations in oral fluid were on average 1.8 times higher than in plasma. dl-threo-Methylphenidate was detected in exhaled breath in all subjects, but there was no consistent concentration-time pattern. CONCLUSIONS: In some subjects, the pharmacologically less active l-threo-enantiomer may contribute to the total plasma methylphenidate concentrations. Monitoring methylphenidate concentrations without enantiomeric determination carries the risk of missing such subjects, which might affect how the plasma concentrations of methylphenidate are interpreted and used for clinical decision making. The use of exhaled breath and oral fluid to assess medication adherence to MPH in patients with ADHD warrants further studies.
Authors: Guilherme Polanczyk; Maurício Silva de Lima; Bernardo Lessa Horta; Joseph Biederman; Luis Augusto Rohde Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: C Hiemke; N Bergemann; H W Clement; A Conca; J Deckert; K Domschke; G Eckermann; K Egberts; M Gerlach; C Greiner; G Gründer; E Haen; U Havemann-Reinecke; G Hefner; R Helmer; G Janssen; E Jaquenoud; G Laux; T Messer; R Mössner; M J Müller; M Paulzen; B Pfuhlmann; P Riederer; A Saria; B Schoppek; G Schoretsanitis; M Schwarz; M Silva Gracia; B Stegmann; W Steimer; J C Stingl; M Uhr; S Ulrich; S Unterecker; R Waschgler; G Zernig; G Zurek; P Baumann Journal: Pharmacopsychiatry Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 5.788
Authors: R I Shader; J S Harmatz; J R Oesterheld; D X Parmelee; F R Sallee; D J Greenblatt Journal: J Clin Pharmacol Date: 1999-08 Impact factor: 3.126
Authors: Zejin Sun; Daryl J Murry; Sonal P Sanghani; Wilhelmina I Davis; Natalia Y Kedishvili; Qin Zou; Thomas D Hurley; William F Bosron Journal: J Pharmacol Exp Ther Date: 2004-04-13 Impact factor: 4.030