Intravenous versus subcutaneous injections of apomorphine in rabbits: a pharmacokinetic paradox.

Bollettino chimico farmaceutico Pub Date : 2003-10-01
M I Ugwoke, R U Agu, R Kinget, N Verbeke
{"title":"Intravenous versus subcutaneous injections of apomorphine in rabbits: a pharmacokinetic paradox.","authors":"M I Ugwoke,&nbsp;R U Agu,&nbsp;R Kinget,&nbsp;N Verbeke","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The objective of this investigation was an attempt to conclusively prove the accidental observation that the AUC of apomorphine in rabbits was repeatedly lower after intravenous injection compared to subcutaneous injection. Apomorphine was administered to rabbits by intravenous and subcutaneous routes at 2 different doses (0.31 mg/kg, n=10; and 0.25 mg/kg, n=6). Plasma drug concentrations were measured by HPLC-ECD and pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated by compartmental and non-compartmental approaches. The AUC of apomorphine in rabbits were: for subcutaneous injection, 14138 +/- 502 ng/ml/min and 12680 +/- 855 ng/ml/min, n=10 and 6, respectively; for intravenous injection, 11850 +/- 718 ng/ml/min and 9147 +/- 671 ng/ml/min, n=10 and 6, respectively. These AUC values were statistically significantly lower when given as intravenous injection compared to subcutaneous injection (p=0.0011 and 0.0117, n=10 and 6, respectively). The T1/2,elim values were: for subcutaneous injection, 17.1 +/- 1.70 min and 18.7 +/- 1.68 min, n=10 and 6, respectively; for intravenous injection, 15.3 +/- 1.20 min and 15.0 +/- 2.24 min, n=10 and 6, respectively. There were no significant differences between the T1/2,elim from both administration routes (p=0.3984 and 0.2158, n=10 and 6, respectively). Given the reproducibility of the results, it was concluded that the AUC of apomorphine after intravenous injection in rabbits is anomalously lower than that of subcutaneous injection.</p>","PeriodicalId":9085,"journal":{"name":"Bollettino chimico farmaceutico","volume":"142 8","pages":"315-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bollettino chimico farmaceutico","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The objective of this investigation was an attempt to conclusively prove the accidental observation that the AUC of apomorphine in rabbits was repeatedly lower after intravenous injection compared to subcutaneous injection. Apomorphine was administered to rabbits by intravenous and subcutaneous routes at 2 different doses (0.31 mg/kg, n=10; and 0.25 mg/kg, n=6). Plasma drug concentrations were measured by HPLC-ECD and pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated by compartmental and non-compartmental approaches. The AUC of apomorphine in rabbits were: for subcutaneous injection, 14138 +/- 502 ng/ml/min and 12680 +/- 855 ng/ml/min, n=10 and 6, respectively; for intravenous injection, 11850 +/- 718 ng/ml/min and 9147 +/- 671 ng/ml/min, n=10 and 6, respectively. These AUC values were statistically significantly lower when given as intravenous injection compared to subcutaneous injection (p=0.0011 and 0.0117, n=10 and 6, respectively). The T1/2,elim values were: for subcutaneous injection, 17.1 +/- 1.70 min and 18.7 +/- 1.68 min, n=10 and 6, respectively; for intravenous injection, 15.3 +/- 1.20 min and 15.0 +/- 2.24 min, n=10 and 6, respectively. There were no significant differences between the T1/2,elim from both administration routes (p=0.3984 and 0.2158, n=10 and 6, respectively). Given the reproducibility of the results, it was concluded that the AUC of apomorphine after intravenous injection in rabbits is anomalously lower than that of subcutaneous injection.

兔静脉注射与皮下注射阿波啡:药代动力学悖论。
本研究的目的是试图结结性地证明偶然观察到的阿波啡在家兔体内静脉注射后比皮下注射后的AUC反复降低。采用静脉和皮下两种不同剂量给药方法(0.31 mg/kg, n=10;0.25 mg/kg, n=6)。采用高效液相色谱- ecd测定血浆药物浓度,采用室室法和非室室法测定药代动力学参数。阿吗啡在家兔体内的AUC分别为:皮下注射14138 +/- 502 ng/ml/min和12680 +/- 855 ng/ml/min, n=10和6;静脉注射11850 +/- 718 ng/ml/min和9147 +/- 671 ng/ml/min, n=10和6。静脉注射与皮下注射相比,这些AUC值具有统计学意义(p=0.0011和0.0117,n分别=10和6)。T1/2、elim值分别为:皮下注射组17.1 +/- 1.70 min、18.7 +/- 1.68 min, n=10、6;静脉注射15.3 +/- 1.20 min, 15.0 +/- 2.24 min, n=10, n= 6。两种给药途径的T1/2、elim差异无统计学意义(p=0.3984和0.2158,n分别=10和6)。考虑到结果的可重复性,家兔静脉注射阿波啡的AUC明显低于皮下注射的AUC。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信