Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T00:26:13.264Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the new propofol prodrug GPI 15715 in rates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2005

M. Schywalsky ,
H. Ihmsen ,
A. Tzabazis ,
J. Fechner ,
E. Burak ,
J. Vornov  and
H. Schwilden
M. Schywalsky
Affiliation:
University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Department of Anaesthesiology, Erlangen, Germany
H. Ihmsen
Affiliation:
University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Department of Anaesthesiology, Erlangen, Germany
A. Tzabazis
Affiliation:
University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Department of Anaesthesiology, Erlangen, Germany
J. Fechner
Affiliation:
University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Department of Anaesthesiology, Erlangen, Germany
E. Burak
Affiliation:
Guilford Pharmaceuticals, Baltimore, MD, USA
J. Vornov
Affiliation:
Guilford Pharmaceuticals, Baltimore, MD, USA
H. Schwilden
Affiliation:
University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Department of Anaesthesiology, Erlangen, Germany
Get access

Extract

Summary

Background and objective: We studied the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of GPI 15715 (Aquavan® injection), a new water-soluble prodrug metabolized to propofol by hydrolysis.

Methods: Nine adult male Sprague–Dawley rats (398 ± 31 g) received a bolus dose of 40 mg GPI 15715. The plasma concentrations of GPI 15715 and propofol were determined from arterial blood samples, and the pharmacokinetics of both compounds were investigated using compartment models whereby the elimination from the central compartment of GPI 15715 was used as drug input for the central compartment of propofol. Pharmacodynamics were assessed using the median frequency of the EEG power spectrum.

Results: A maximum propofol concentration of 7.1 ± 1.7 μg mL−1 was reached 3.7 ± 0.2 min after bolus administration. Pharmacokinetics were best described by two-compartment models. GPI 15715 showed a short half-life (2.9 ± 0.2 and 23.9 ± 9.9 min), an elimination rate constant of 0.18 ± 0.01 min−1 and a central volume of distribution of 0.25 ± 0.02 L kg−1. For propofol, the half-life was 1.9 ± 0.1 and 45 ± 7 min, the elimination rate constant was 0.15 ± 0.02 min−1 and the central volume of distribution was 2.3 ± 0.6 L kg−1. The maximum effect on the electroencephalogram (EEG) – EEG suppression for >4 s – occurred 6.5 ± 1.2 min after bolus administration and baseline values of the EEG median frequency were regained 30 min later. The EEG effect could be described by a sigmoid Emax model including an effect compartment (E0 = 16.9 ± 7.9 Hz, EC50 = 2.6 ± 0.8 μg mL−1, ke0 = 0.35 ± 0.04 min−1).

Conclusions: Compared with known propofol formulations, propofol from GPI 15715 showed a longer half-life, an increased volume of distribution, a delayed onset, a sustained duration of action and a greater potency with respect to concentration.

Keywords

ANAESTHETICS, INTRAVENOUS, propofolELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHYPHARMACODYNAMICSPHARMACOKINETICS, biotransformationRAT
Type
Original Article
Information
European Journal of Anaesthesiology , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , March 2003 , pp. 182 - 190
Copyright
© 2003 European Society of Anaesthesiology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bryson HM, Fulton BR, Faulds D. Propofol. An update of its use in anaesthesia and conscious sedation. Drugs 1995; 50: 513–559.Google Scholar
Albrecht S, Ihmsen H, Suchodolski K, Frenkel C, Schuttler J. Analgo-sedation in intensive care: a quantitative, EEG-based trial with propofol 1% and 2%. Anaesthesist 1999; 48: 794–801.Google Scholar
Lindholm M. Critically ill patients and fat emulsions. Minerva Anestesiol 1992; 58: 875–879.Google Scholar
Beal S, Sheiner L. NONMEM User's Guide. San Francisco, USA: University of California, 1994.
Ihmsen H, Tzabazis A, Schywalsky M, Schwilden H. Propofol in rats: testing for Nonlinear pharmacokinetics and modelling acute tolerance to EEG effects. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2002; 19: 177–188.Google Scholar
Dutta S, Matsumoto Y, Gothgen NU, Ebling WF. Concentration-EEG effect relationship of propofol in rats. J Pharm Sci 1997; 86: 37–43.Google Scholar
Cockshott ID, Douglas EJ, Plummer GF, Simons PJ. The pharmacokinetics of propofol in laboratory animals. Xenobiotica 1992; 22: 369–375.Google Scholar
Cox EH, Knibbe CA, Koster VS, et al. Influence of different fat emulsion-based intravenous formulations on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of propofol. Pharm Res 1998; 15: 442–448.Google Scholar
Dutta S, Ebling WF. Formulation-dependent pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of propofol in rats. J Pharm Pharmacol 1998; 50: 37–42.Google Scholar
Dutta S, Ebling WF. Formulation-dependent brain and lung distribution kinetics of propofol in rats. Anesthesiology 1998; 89: 678–685.Google Scholar
Ebling WF, Wada DR, Stanski DR. From piecewise to full physiologic pharmacokinetic modeling: applied to thiopental disposition in the rat. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1994; 22: 259–292.Google Scholar
Glen JB. Animal studies of the anaesthetic activity of ICI 35 868. Br J Anaesth 1980; 52: 731–742.Google Scholar
Yang CH, Shyr MH, Kuo TB, Tan PP, Chan SH. Effects of propofol on nociceptive response and power spectra of electroencephalographic and systemic arterial pressure signals in the rat: correlation with plasma concentration. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1995; 275: 1568–1574.Google Scholar
GPI 15715. Investigator's brochure. Baltimore, USA: Guilford Pharmaceuticals, 2001.