Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Erik Olofsen

Publications and source records attributed to Erik Olofsen.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Mechanism-based pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling of the respiratory-depressant effect of buprenorphine and fentanyl in rats.

The purpose of this investigation was to develop a mechanism-based pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) model to predict the time course of respiratory depression following administration of opioids in rats. The proposed model is based on receptor theory and aims at the separate characterization of biophase distribution and receptor association/dissociation kinetics as determinants of hysteresis between plasma concentration and effect. Individual concentration time courses of buprenorphine and fentanyl were determined in conjunction with continuous monitoring of respiratory depression. Buprenorphine and fentanyl were administered intravenously in various doses. For buprenorphine hysteresis was best described by a combined biophase distribution-receptor association/dissociation model with a linear transducer function. The values of the parameter estimates of the rate constants for biophase distribution (k(eo)), receptor association (k(on)), and dissociation (k(off)) were 0.0348 min(-1) [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.0193-0.0503 min(-1)], 0.57 ml/ng/min (95% CI, 0.38-0.76 ml/ng/min), and 0.0903 min(-1) (95% CI, 0.035-0.196 min(-1)), respectively. The values of the equilibrium dissociation constant and intrinsic activity were 0.16 ng/ml and 0.48 (95% CI, 0.45-0.51), respectively. The value of the K(d) is close to reported estimates of receptor affinity in vitro confirming the validity of the mechanism-based PK/PD model. For fentanyl, unrealistically high estimates of the rate constants for receptor association and dissociation were obtained, indicating that hysteresis is caused solely by biophase distribution kinetics. This is consistent with fentanyl's fast receptor association/dissociation kinetics in vitro. As a result, the mechanism-based PK/PD model of fentanyl could be reduced to a biophase distribution model with fractional sigmoid E(max) pharmacodynamic model.

Animals↗
PubMed2006

Mechanism-based pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling of the antinociceptive effect of buprenorphine in healthy volunteers.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this investigation was to characterize the pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relation of buprenorphine's antinociceptive effect in healthy volunteers. METHODS: Data on the time course of the antinociceptive effect after intravenous administration of 0.05-0.6 mg/70 kg buprenorphine in healthy volunteers was analyzed in conjunction with plasma concentrations by nonlinear mixed-effects analysis. RESULTS: A three-compartment pharmacokinetic model best described the concentration time course. Four structurally different pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic models were evaluated for their appropriateness to describe the time course of buprenorphine's antinociceptive effect: (1) E(max) model with an effect compartment model, (2) "power" model with an effect compartment model, (3) receptor association-dissociation model with a linear transduction function, and (4) combined biophase equilibration/receptor association-dissociation model with a linear transduction function. The latter pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model described the time course of effect best and was used to explain time dependencies in buprenorphine's pharmacodynamics. The model converged, yielding precise estimation of the parameters characterizing hysteresis and the relation between relative receptor occupancy and antinociceptive effect. The rate constant describing biophase equilibration (k(eo)) was 0.00447 min(-1) (95% confidence interval, 0.00299-0.00595 min(-1)). The receptor dissociation rate constant (k(off)) was 0.0785 min(-1) (95% confidence interval, 0.0352-0.122 min(-1)), and k(on) was 0.0631 ml . ng(-1) . min(-1) (95% confidence interval, 0.0390-0.0872 ml . ng(-1) . min(-1)). CONCLUSION: This is consistent with observations in rats, suggesting that the rate-limiting step in the onset and offset of the antinociceptive effect is biophase distribution rather than slow receptor association-dissociation. In the dose range studied, no saturation of receptor occupancy occurred explaining the lack of a ceiling effect for antinociception.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2006

Naloxone reversal of buprenorphine-induced respiratory depression.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this investigation was to examine the ability of the opioid antagonist naloxone to reverse respiratory depression produced by the mu-opioid analgesic, buprenorphine, in healthy volunteers. The studies were designed in light of the claims that buprenorphine is relatively resistant to the effects of naloxone. METHODS: In a first attempt, the effect of an intravenous bolus dose of 0.8 mg naloxone was assessed on 0.2 mg buprenorphine-induced respiratory depression. Next, the effect of increasing naloxone doses (0.5-7 mg, given over 30 min) on 0.2 mg buprenorphine-induced respiratory depression was tested. Subsequently, continuous naloxone infusions were applied to reverse respiratory depression from 0.2 and 0.4 mg buprenorphine. All doses are per 70 kg. Respiration was measured against a background of constant increased end-tidal carbon dioxide concentration. RESULTS: An intravenous naloxone dose of 0.8 mg had no effect on respiratory depression from buprenorphine. Increasing doses of naloxone given over 30 min produced full reversal of buprenorphine effect in the dose range of 2-4 mg naloxone. Further increasing the naloxone dose (doses of 5 mg or greater) caused a decline in reversal activity. Naloxone bolus doses of 2-3 mg, followed by a continuous infusion of 4 mg/h, caused full reversal within 40-60 min of both 0.2 and 0.4 mg buprenorphine-induced respiratory depression. CONCLUSIONS: Reversal of buprenorphine effect is possible but depends on the buprenorphine dose and the correct naloxone dose window. Because respiratory depression from buprenorphine may outlast the effects of naloxone boluses or short infusions, a continuous infusion of naloxone may be required to maintain reversal of respiratory depression.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Population pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of anesthetics.

In this article we review how population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PD) modeling has evolved in the specialty of anesthesiology, how anesthesiology benefited from the mixed-effects approach, and which features of modeling need careful attention. Key articles from the anesthesiology literature are selected to discuss the modeling of typical anesthesiological PD end points, such as level of consciousness and analgesia, interactions between hypnotics and analgesics, estimation with poor and sometimes rich data sets from populations of various sizes, covariate detection, covariances between random effects, and Bayesian forecasting.

Anesthetics↗
PubMed2005

Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling of the antinociceptive effect of buprenorphine and fentanyl in rats: role of receptor equilibration kinetics.

The objective of this investigation was to characterize the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic correlation of buprenorphine and fentanyl for the antinociceptive effect in rats. Data on the time course of the antinociceptive effect following intravenous administration of buprenorphine or fentanyl was analyzed in conjunction with plasma concentrations by nonlinear mixed-effects analysis. For fentanyl, the pharmacokinetics was described on the basis of a two-compartment pharmacokinetic model. For buprenorphine, a three-compartment pharmacokinetic model best described the concentration time course. To explain time dependencies in pharmacodynamics of buprenorphine and fentanyl, a combined effect compartment/receptor binding model was applied. A log logistic probability distribution model is proposed to account for censored tail-flick latencies. The model converged, yielding precise estimates of the parameters characterizing hysteresis. The results show that onset and offset of the antinociceptive effect of both buprenorphine and fentanyl is mainly determined by biophase distribution. The k(eo) was 0.024 min(-1) [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.018-0.030 min(-1)] and 0.123 min(-1) (95% CI: 0.095-0.151 min(-1)) for buprenorphine and fentanyl, respectively. On the other hand, part of the hysteresis in the buprenorphine pharmacodynamics could be explained by slow receptor association/dissociation kinetics. The k(off) was 0.073 min(-1) (95% CI: 0.042-0.104 min(-1)) and k(on) was 0.023 ml/ng/min (95% CI: 0.013-0.033 ml/ng/min). Fentanyl binds instantaneously to the OP3 receptor because no reasonable values for k(on) and k(off) were obtained with the dynamical receptor model. In contrast to earlier reports in the literature, the findings of this study show that the rate-limiting step in the onset and offset of buprenorphine's antinociceptive effect is distribution to the brain.

Analgesics, Opioid↗
PubMed2005

Polymorphism of mu-opioid receptor gene (OPRM1:c.118A>G) does not protect against opioid-induced respiratory depression despite reduced analgesic response.

BACKGROUND: The effect of a single nucleotide polymorphism of the mu-opioid receptor at nucleotide position 118 (OPRM1:c.118A>G) was investigated on morphine-6-glucuronide (M6G)-induced analgesia and respiratory depression in a group of healthy volunteers. METHODS: Sixteen subjects of either sex received 0.4 mg/kg (n = 8) or 0.6 mg/kg M6G (n = 8). At regular time intervals, the isocapnic acute hypoxic ventilatory response, pain tolerance (derived from a transcutaneous electrical acute pain model), and arterial blood samples were obtained. Data acquisition continued for 14 h after drug infusion. Population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic sigmoid Emax models were applied to the respiratory and pain data. All collected data were analyzed using the statistical program NONMEM (San Francisco, CA). RESULTS: Four of the subjects were OPRM1:c.118GA heterozygotes, and the remainder of the subjects were OPRM1:c.118AA homozygotes. M6G analgesia: In contrast to analgesic responses in OPRM1:c.118AA homozygotes, responses were small and inconsistent in OPRM1:c.118GA heterozygotes and best described by the function Effect(t) = baseline (P < 0.01 vs. OPRM1:c.118AA homozygotes). Emax and C50 values in heterozygotes equaled 0.55 +/- 0.18 (or a 55% increase in current above baseline) and 161 +/- 42 ng/ml, respectively. M6G-induced respiratory depression: For the acute hypoxic response, neither Emax nor C50 (value = 282 +/- 72 ng/ml) differed between genotypes. CONCLUSIONS: The data indicate that the OPRM1:c.118A>G polymorphism affects opioid analgesic and respiratory effects differentially. Despite reduced analgesic responses to M6G the OPRM1:c.118A>G single-nucleotide polymorphism does not protect against the toxic effects of the tested opioid. However, some caution in the interpretation of the data is needed because of the small sample size. Further studies are needed to explore the link between this polymorphism and respiratory/analgesic responses beyond the small human sample. In OPRM1:c.118AA homozygotes, the potency parameters differed by a factor of 2 for analgesic versus respiratory effect. In this respect, M6G differs favorably from morphine.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2005

Alfentanil and placebo analgesia: no sex differences detected in models of experimental pain.

BACKGROUND: To assess whether patient sex contributes to the interindividual variability in alfentanil analgesic sensitivity, the authors compared male and female subjects for pain sensitivity after alfentanil using a pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling approach. METHODS: Healthy volunteers received a 30-min alfentanil or placebo infusion on two occasions. Analgesia was measured during the subsequent 6 h by assaying tolerance to transcutaneous electrical stimulation (eight men and eight women) of increasing intensity or using visual analog scale scores during treatment with noxious thermal heat (five men and five women). Sedation was concomitantly measured. Population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic models were applied to the analgesia and sedation data using NONMEM. For electrical pain, the placebo and alfentanil models were combined post hoc. RESULTS: Alfentanil and placebo analgesic responses did not differ between sexes. The placebo effect was successfully incorporated into the alfentanil pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model and was responsible for 20% of the potency of alfentanil. However, the placebo effect did not contribute to the analgesic response variability. The pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analysis of the electrical and heat pain data yielded similar values for the potency parameter, but the blood-effect site equilibration half-life was significantly longer for electrical pain (7-9 min) than for heat pain (0.2 min) or sedation (2 min). CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to the ample literature demonstrating sex differences in morphine analgesia, neither sex nor subject expectation (i.e., placebo) contributes to the large between-subject response variability with alfentanil analgesia. The difference in alfentanil analgesia onset and offset between pain tests is discussed.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2004

Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling of morphine-6-glucuronide-induced analgesia in healthy volunteers: absence of sex differences.

BACKGROUND: Morphine-6-glucuronide (M6G) is a metabolite of morphine and a micro-opioid agonist. To quantify the potency and speed of onset-offset of M6G and explore putative sex dependency, the authors studied the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of M6G in volunteers using a placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind study design. METHODS: Ten men and 10 women received 0.3 mg/kg intravenous M6G and placebo (two thirds of the dose as bolus, one third as a continuous infusion over 1 h) on separate occasions. For 7 h, pain tolerance was measured using gradually increasing transcutaneous electrical stimulation, and blood samples were obtained. A population pharmacokinetic (inhibitory sigmoid Emax)-pharmacodynamic analysis was used to analyze M6G-induced changes in tolerated stimulus intensity. The improvement in model fits by inclusion of covariate sex was tested for significance. P values less than 0.01 were considered significant. Taking into account previous morphine data, a predictive pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model was constructed to determine the contribution of M6G to morphine analgesia. RESULTS: M6G concentrations did not differ between men and women. M6G caused analgesia significantly greater than that observed with placebo (P < 0.01). The M6G analgesia data were well described by the pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model. The M6G effect site concentration causing a 25% increase in current (C25) was 275 +/- 135 nm (population estimate +/- SE), the blood effect site equilibration half-life was 6.2 +/- 3.3 h, and the steepness parameter was 0.71 +/- 0.18. Intersubject variability was 167% for C25 and 218% for the effect half-life. None of the model parameters showed sex dependency. CONCLUSIONS: A cumulative dose of 0.3 mg/kg M6G, given over 1 h, produces long-term analgesia greater than that observed with placebo, with equal dynamics (potency and speed of onset-offset) in men and women. Possible causes for the great intersubject response variability, such as genetic polymorphism of the micro-opioid receptor and placebo-related phenomena, are discussed. The predictive pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model was applied successfully and was used to estimate M6G analgesia after morphine in patients with normal and impaired renal function.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Mixed-effects modeling of the influence of alfentanil on propofol pharmacokinetics.

BACKGROUND: The influence of alfentanil on the pharmacokinetics of propofol is poorly understood. Therefore, the authors studied the effect of a pseudo-steady state concentration of alfentanil on the pharmacokinetics of propofol. METHODS: The pharmacokinetics of propofol were studied on two occasions in eight male volunteers in a randomized crossover manner with a 3-week interval. While volunteers breathed 30% O2 in air, 1 mg/kg intravenous propofol was given in 1 min, followed by 3 mg.kg(-1).h(-1) for 59 min (sessions A and B). During session B, a target-controlled infusion of alfentanil (target concentration, 80 ng/ml) was given from 10 min before the start until 6 h after termination of the propofol infusion. Blood pressure, cardiac output, electrocardiogram, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, and end-tidal carbon dioxide were monitored. Venous blood samples for determination of the blood propofol and plasma alfentanil concentration were collected until 6 h after termination of the propofol infusion. Nonlinear mixed-effects population pharmacokinetic models examining the influence of alfentanil and hemodynamic parameters on propofol pharmacokinetics were constructed. RESULTS: A two-compartment model, including a lag time accounting for the venous blood sampling, adequately described the concentration-time curves of propofol. Alfentanil decreased the elimination clearance of propofol from 2.1 l/min to 1.9 l/min, the distribution clearance from 2.7 l/min to 2.0 l/min, and the peripheral volume of distribution from 179 l to 141 l. Scaling the pharmacokinetic parameters to cardiac output, heart rate, and plasma alfentanil concentration significantly improved the model. CONCLUSIONS: Alfentanil alters the pharmacokinetics of propofol. Cardiac output and heart rate have an important influence on the pharmacokinetics of propofol.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Simultaneous measurement and integrated analysis of analgesia and respiration after an intravenous morphine infusion.

BACKGROUND: To study the influence of morphine on chemical control of breathing relative to the analgesic properties of morphine, the authors quantified morphine-induced analgesia and respiratory depression in a single group of healthy volunteers. Both respiratory and pain measurements were performed over single 24-h time spans. METHODS: Eight subjects (four men, four women) received a 90-s intravenous morphine infusion; eight others (four men, four women) received a 90-s placebo infusion. At regular time intervals, respiratory variables (breathing at a fixed end-tidal partial pressure of carbon dioxide of 50 mmHg and the isocapnic acute hypoxic response), pain tolerance (derived from a transcutaneous electrical acute pain model), and arterial blood samples were obtained. Data acquisition continued for 24 h. Population pharmacokinetic (sigmoid Emax)-pharmacodynamic models were applied to the respiratory and pain data. The models are characterized by potency parameters, shape parameters (gamma), and blood-effect site equilibration half-lives. All collected data were analyzed simultaneously using the statistical program NONMEM. RESULTS: Placebo had no systematic effect on analgesic or respiratory variables. Morphine potency parameter and blood-effect site equilibration half-life did not differ significantly among the three measured effect parameters (P > 0.01). The integrated NONMEM analysis yielded a potency parameter of 32 +/- 1.4 nm (typical value +/- SE) and a blood-effect site equilibration half-life of 4.4 +/- 0.3 h. Parameter gamma was 1 for hypercapnic and hypoxic breathing but 2.4 +/- 0.7 for analgesia (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate that systems involved in morphine-induced analgesia and respiratory depression share important pharmacodynamic characteristics. This suggests similarities in central mu-opioid analgesic and respiratory pathways (e.g., similarities in mu-opioid receptors and G proteins). The clinical implication of this study is that after morphine administration, despite lack of good pain relief, moderate to severe respiratory depression remains possible.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2004

Nonlinear mixed-effects modeling: individualization and prediction.

The development of biomathematical models for the prediction of fatigue and performance relies on statistical techniques to analyze experimental data and model simulations. Statistical models of empirical data have adjustable parameters with a priori unknown values. Interindividual variability in estimates of those values requires a form of smoothing. This traditionally consists of averaging observations across subjects, or fitting a model to the data of individual subjects first and subsequently averaging the parameter estimates. However, the standard errors of the parameter estimates are assessed inaccurately by such averaging methods. The reason is that intra- and inter-individual variabilities are intertwined. They can be separated by mixed-effects modeling in which model predictions are not only determined by fixed effects (usually constant parameters or functions of time) but also by random effects, describing the sampling of subject-specific parameter values from probability distributions. By estimating the parameters of the distributions of the random effects, mixed-effects models can describe experimental observations involving multiple subjects properly (i.e., yielding correct estimates of the standard errors) and parsimoniously (i.e., estimating no more parameters than necessary). Using a Bayesian approach, mixed-effects models can be "individualized" as observations are acquired that capture the unique characteristics of the individual at hand. Mixed-effects models, therefore, have unique advantages in research on human neurobehavioral functions, which frequently show large inter-individual differences. To illustrate this we analyzed laboratory neurobehavioral performance data acquired during sleep deprivation, using a nonlinear mixed-effects model. The results serve to demonstrate the usefulness of mixed-effects modeling for data-driven development of individualized predictive models of fatigue and performance.

Bayes Theorem↗
PubMed2003

Response surface modeling of remifentanil-propofol interaction on cardiorespiratory control and bispectral index.

BACKGROUND: Since propofol and remifentanil are frequently combined for monitored anesthesia care, we examined the influence of the separate and combined administration of these agents on cardiorespiratory control and bispectral index in humans. METHODS: The effect of steady-state concentrations of remifentanil and propofol was assessed in 22 healthy male volunteer subjects. For each subject, measurements were obtained from experiments using remifentanil alone, propofol alone, and remifentanil plus propofol (measured arterial blood concentration range: propofol studies, 0-2.6 microg/ml; remifentanil studies, 0-2.0 ng/ml). Respiratory experiments consisted of ventilatory responses to three to eight increases in end-tidal Pco2 (Petco2). Invasive blood pressure, heart rate, and bispectral index were monitored concurrently. The nature of interaction was assessed by response surface modeling using a population approach with NONMEM. Values are population estimate plus or minus standard error. RESULTS: A total of 94 responses were obtained at various drug combinations. When given separately, remifentanil and propofol depressed cardiorespiratory variables in a dose-dependent fashion (resting V(i) : 12.6 +/- 3.3% and 27.7 +/- 3.5% depression at 1 microg/ml propofol and 1 ng/ml remifentanil, respectively; V(i) at fixed Petco of 55 mmHg: 44.3 +/- 3.9% and 57.7 +/- 3.5% depression at 1 microg/ml propofol and 1 ng/ml remifentanil, respectively; blood pressure: 9.9 +/- 1.8% and 3.7 +/- 1.1% depression at 1 microg/ml propofol and 1 ng/ml remifentanil, respectively). When given in combination, their effect on respiration was synergistic (greatest synergy observed for resting V(i)). The effects of both drugs on heart rate and blood pressure were modest, with additive interactions when combined. Over the dose range studied, remifentanil had no effect on bispectral index even when combined with propofol (inert interaction). CONCLUSIONS: These data show dose-dependent effects on respiration at relatively low concentrations of propofol and remifentanil. When combined, their effect on respiration is strikingly synergistic, resulting in severe respiratory depression.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Propofol reduces perioperative remifentanil requirements in a synergistic manner: response surface modeling of perioperative remifentanil-propofol interactions.

BACKGROUND: Remifentanil is often combined with propofol for induction and maintenance of total intravenous anesthesia. The authors studied the effect of propofol on remifentanil requirements for suppression of responses to clinically relevant stimuli and evaluated this in relation to previously published data on propofol and alfentanil. METHODS: With ethics committee approval and informed consent, 30 unpremedicated female patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status class I or II, aged 18-65 yr, scheduled to undergo lower abdominal surgery, were randomly assigned to receive a target-controlled infusion of propofol with constant target concentrations of 2, 4, or 6 microg/ml. The target concentration of remifentanil was changed in response to signs of inadequate anesthesia. Arterial blood samples for the determination of remifentanil and propofol concentrations were collected after blood-effect site equilibration. The presence or absence of responses to various perioperative stimuli were related to the propofol and remifentanil concentrations by response surface modeling or logistic regression, followed by regression analysis. Both additive and nonadditive interaction models were explored. RESULTS: With blood propofol concentrations increasing from 2 to 7.3 microg/ml, the C(50) of remifentanil decreased from 3.8 ng/ml to 0 ng/ml for laryngoscopy, from 4.4 ng/ml to 1.2 ng/ml for intubation, and from 6.3 ng/ml to 0.4 ng/ml for intraabdominal surgery. With blood remifentanil concentrations increasing from 0 to 7 ng/ml, the C(50) of propofol for the return to consciousness decreased from 3.5 microg/ml to 0.6 microg/ml. CONCLUSIONS: Propofol reduces remifentanil requirements for suppression of responses to laryngoscopy, intubation, and intraabdominal surgical stimulation in a synergistic manner. In addition, remifentanil decreases propofol concentrations associated with the return of consciousness in a synergistic manner.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Pharmacodynamic effect of morphine-6-glucuronide versus morphine on hypoxic and hypercapnic breathing in healthy volunteers.

BACKGROUND: Morphine-6-glucuronide (M6G) is an active metabolite of morphine that is generally associated with less respiratory depression than morphine. Because M6G will be on the market in the near future, the authors assessed the time profile and relative potency of M6G's effect versus morphine's effect on carbon dioxide-driven and hypoxic breathing. METHODS: In nine healthy female volunteers, the effects of 0.2 mg/kg intravenous M6G, 0.13 mg/kg intravenous morphine, and intravenous placebo were tested on ventilation at a fixed end-tidal pressure of carbon dioxide (Petco2) of 45 mmHg (Vi45) and on the acute hypoxic ventilatory response (AHR). All subjects participated in all three arms of the study. Respiratory studies were performed at 1-h intervals for 7 h after drug infusion. The data were analyzed using a population dose-driven approach, which uses a dose rate in function of time as input function driving the pharmacodynamics, and a population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) approach in which fixed pharmacokinetic parameter values from the literature were used as input function to the respiratory model. From the latter analysis, the authors obtained the blood effect-site equilibration half-life (t1/2ke0) and the effect-site concentration producing 25% depression of Vi45 and AHR (C25). Values reported are mean +/- SE. RESULTS: Placebo had no effect on Vi45 or AHR over time. Both analysis approaches yielded good descriptions of the data with comparable model parameters. M6G PK/PD model parameters for Vi45 were t1/2ke0 2.1 +/- 0.2 h and C25 528 +/- 88 nm and for AHR were t1/2ke0 1.0 +/- 0.1 h and C25 873 +/- 81 nm. Morphine PK/PD model parameters for Vi45 were t1/2ke0 3.8 +/- 0.9 h and C25 28 +/- 6 nm and for AHR were t1/2ke0 4.3 +/- 0.6 h and C25 16 +/- 2 nm. CONCLUSIONS: Morphine is more potent in affecting hypoxic ventilatory control than M6G, with a potency ratio ranging from 1:19 for Vi45 to 1:50 for AHR. At drug concentrations causing 25% depression of Vi45, M6G caused only 15% depression of AHR, whereas morphine caused greater than 50% depression of AHR. Furthermore, the speed of onset/offset of M6G is faster than morphine by a factor of approximately 2. The authors discuss some of the possible mechanisms for the observed differences in opioid behavior.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

The interaction between propofol and clonidine for loss of consciousness.

UNLABELLED: Clonidine premedication reduces the intraoperative requirement for opioids and volatile anesthetics. Clonidine also reduces the induction dose of IV anesthetics. There is no information, however, regarding the effect of oral clonidine premedication on the propofol blood concentrations required for loss of consciousness, and the interaction between propofol and clonidine. We randomly administered target effect-site concentrations of propofol ranging from 0.5 to 5. 0 microg/mL by using computer-assisted target-controlled infusion to 3 groups of healthy male patients: Control (n = 35), 2.5 microg/kg Clonidine (n = 36), and 5.0 microg/kg Clonidine (n = 36) groups. Nothing was administered to the Control group. Clonidine (2.5 or 5.0 microg/kg) was administered orally 90 min before the induction of anesthesia in the Clonidine groups. After equilibration between the blood and effect-site for 15 min, a verbal command to open their eyes was given two times to the patients. Arterial blood samples for analysis of the serum propofol and clonidine concentrations were taken immediately before verbal commands were given. Measured serum propofol concentrations in equilibrium with the effect-site at which 50% of the patients did not respond to verbal commands (EC50 for loss of consciousness) were determined by logistic regression. The EC50 +/- SE values in the Control, 2.5 microg/kg Clonidine, and 5.0 microg/kg Clonidine groups were 2.67 +/- 0.18, 1.31 +/- 0.12, and 0.91 +/- 0.13 microg/mL, respectively. The EC50 in the 2.5 and 5.0 microg/kg clonidine groups was significantly smaller than that in the Control group (P < 0.001). The use of a response surface modeling analysis indicated that there was an additive interaction between measured arterial propofol and clonidine concentrations in relation to loss of consciousness. These results indicate that propofol and clonidine act additively for loss of consciousness. IMPLICATIONS: Oral clonidine 2.5 and 5.0 microg/kg premedication decreases the propofol concentration required for loss of consciousness.

Administration, Oral↗