Pharmacokinetic analysis of pralidoxime after its intramuscular injection alone or in combination with atropine-avizafone in healthy volunteers.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Treatment of organophosphate poisoning with pralidoxime needs to be improved. Here we have studied the pharmacokinetics of pralidoxime after its intramuscular injection alone or in combination with avizafone and atropine using an auto-injector device. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: The study was conducted in an open, randomized, single-dose, two-way, cross-over design. At each period, each subject received either intramuscular injections of pralidoxime (700 mg), or two injections of the combination: pralidoxime (350 mg), atropine (2 mg), avizafone (20 mg). Pralidoxime concentrations were quantified using a validated LC/MS-MS method. Two approaches were used to analyse these data: (i) a non-compartmental approach; and (ii) a compartmental modelling approach. KEY RESULTS: The injection of pralidoxime combination with atropine and avizafone provided a higher pralidoxime maximal concentration than that obtained after the injection of pralidoxime alone (out of bioequivalence range), while pralidoxime AUC values were equivalent. Pralidoxime concentrations reached their maximal value earlier after the injection of the combination. According to Akaike and to goodness of fit criteria, the best model describing the pharmacokinetics of pralidoxime was a two-compartment with a zero-order absorption model. When avizafone and atropine were injected with pralidoxime, the best model describing pralidoxime pharmacokinetics becomes a two-compartment with a first-order absorption model. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The two approaches, non-compartmental and compartmental, showed that the administration of avizafone and atropine with pralidoxime results in a faster absorption into the general circulation and higher maximal concentrations, compared with the administration of pralidoxime alone.

BIS response to tamponade and dobutamine in swine varies with hypnotic/opiate ratio.

OBJECTIVES: This study in swine assessed BIS stability in response to decreases and increases in cardiac output under two propofol/remifentanil dosage combinations, both producing the same depth of surgical anaesthesia. METHODS: Eight anaesthetized-paralyzed ventilated adult swine were studied using a random-order cross-over design. Four received a P low/R high combination (P, 8.4+/-0.9 mg/kg/h; and R, 0.54+/-0.02 microg/kg/min) and then a P high/R low combination (P, 26.7+/-2.1mg/kg/h; and R, 0.34+/-0.01 microg/kg/min). The other four had these two combinations in the reverse order. Under each P/R combination, and after a 60-minutes steady state, a 15-minute stable cardiac tamponade was induced by intrapericardial gelatine infusion. Then, after returning to pre tamponade condition, a 15 minutes period with dobutamine was allowed. RESULTS: Tamponade induced falls in average mean arterial pressure (MAP) (from 79+/-18 to 47+/-9 mm Hg; p<0.05) and cardiac output (Qc) (from 1.90+/-0.46 l/min to 1.20+/-0.38 l/min, p<0.05). Conversely, dobutamine increased both MAP and Qc (p<0.05). During each type of hemodynamic challenges, changes in anaesthesia depth as assessed by BIS differed dramatically between the two drug combinations, despite observing the same percent change in P and R effect-site concentration. With P high/R low and tamponade, BIS fell from 65+/-5 to 29+/-10 (p<0.05); dobutamine produced opposite effects. With P low/R high, in contrast, BIS was not influenced by either of the hemodynamic challenges. CONCLUSION: Conversely to a high propofol/low remifentanil combination, a low propofol/high remifentanil combination allows constant anaesthetic depth in the face of haemodynamic challenges.