QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Résumé Extracto Full Text PDF Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Articles Ahead of Print [Order Reprint] Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Foster, D. Articles by Popper, L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Foster, D. Articles by Popper, L.

PAIN MANAGEMENT

Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Intranasal Versus Intravenous Fentanyl in Patients with Pain after Oral Surgery

Lecturer, Sansom Institute, School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, Adelaide, Australia

Richard Upton, PhD

Principal Medical Scientist/Senior Lecturer, Discipline of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Royal Adelaide Hospital/University of Adelaide, North Tce, Australia

Lona Christrup, PhD

Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

Lars Popper, PhD

International Medical Adviser, Pain; Medical Scientific Strategy and Medical Marketing, Nycomed Pharma, Denmark

Reprints: Dr. Christrup, Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, 2 Universitetsparken, DK - 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark, fax 45 35 60 60 50, llc{at}farma.ku.dk

BACKGROUND: Fentanyl, a short-acting synthetic opioid, has a pharmacokinetic profile suited to fast relief of brief episodic pain.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic correlation of intranasal and intravenous fentanyl in opioid-naïve patients undergoing third molar extraction.

METHODS: A double-blind, double-dummy, crossover design study was conducted, with patients randomized to receive 1 of 4 fentanyl doses (75, 100, 150, or 200 µg) by both the intravenous and intranasal routes. Venous fentanyl concentrations were determined for up to 180 minutes and pain scores were recorded up to 240 minutes postdose. Duration of effect and time to rescue medication were also recorded.

RESULTS: The pharmacokinetics of intravenous fentanyl reflected a 2-compartment model with a clearance of approximately 1.5 L/min. There was moderate (<50%) between-subject variability (BSV; %CV [coefficient of variation]) in the systemic kinetics of fentanyl. Bioavailability of intranasal fentanyl was 89%, following first-order absorption, with a lag of approximately 5 minutes and a half-life of approximately 6.5 minutes. Interpatient absorption variability was approximately 30% BSV for all absorption parameters. Intranasal versus intravenous administration led to a delayed mean fentanyl time to maximum concentration (13 vs 6 min) and lower maximum concentration (1.2 vs 2.0 ng/mL). Analgesic effect lagged behind the venous fentanyl concentration, with a half-life of approximately 2.5 minutes as described by a fractional sigmoid maximum drug effect dynamic model. The concentration–analgesia relationship was steep, with a 50% effective concentration of 0.46 ng/mL (Hill coefficient 3.5). Intranasal onset and offset of analgesia were slightly delayed, principally due to the delay and lag in systemic absorption, with slightly lower peak analgesic effect, compared with intravenous fentanyl. Duration of effect was directly related to intranasal fentanyl dose, with pain scores returning to predose values at approximately 120 minutes (75 µg) to approximately 240 minutes (200 µg) after a single dose.

CONCLUSIONS: Intranasal fentanyl showed kinetic and dynamic properties that are desirable for the management of acute, episodic (breakthrough) pain.

Key Words: acute pain, fentanyl, intranasal administration, pharmacokinetic–dynamic modeling

Published Online, August 26, 2008. www.theannals.com, DOI 10.1345/aph.1L168