Preclinical Evaluation of Ropivacaine in 2 Liposomal Modified Systems.

BACKGROUND: Our research group has recently developed liposomes with ionic gradient and in a combined manner as donor and acceptor vesicles containing ropivacaine (RVC; at 2% or 0.75%). Looking for applications of such novel formulations for postoperative pain control, we evaluated the duration of anesthesia, pharmacokinetics, and tissue reaction evoked by these new RVC formulations. METHODS: The formulations used in this study were large multivesicular vesicle (LMVV) containing sodium acetate buffer at pH 5.5 or in a combined manner with LMVV as donor and large unilamellar vesicles (LUVs) as acceptor vesicles with an external pH of 7.4. Wistar rats were divided into 6 groups (n = 6) and received sciatic nerve block (0.4 mL) with 6 formulations of RVC (LMVVRVC0.75%, LMVV/LUVRVC0.75%, LMVVRVC2%, LMVV/LUVRVC2%, RVC 0.75%, and RVC 2%). To verify the anesthetic effect, the animals were submitted to the pain pressure test and the motor block was also monitored. Histopathology of the tissues surrounding the sciatic nerve region was also assessed 2 and 7 days after treatment. Rats (n = 6) were submitted to a hind paw incision, and mechanical hypersensitivity was measured via the withdrawal response using von Frey filaments after injection of the 6 formulations. Finally, New Zealand white rabbits (n = 6) received sciatic nerve block (3 mL) with 1 of the 6 formulations of RVC. Blood samples were collected predose (0 minutes) and at 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, 120, 180, 240, 300, 360, 420, 480, and 540 minutes after injection. RVC plasma levels were determined using a triple-stage quadrupole mass spectrometer. RESULTS: Duration and intensity of the sensory block were longer with all liposomal formulations, when compared to the plain RVC solution (P < .05). Histopathological evaluation showed greater toxicity for the positive control (lidocaine 10%), when compared to all formulations (P < .05). After the hind paw incision, all animals presented postincisional hypersensitivity and liposomal formulations showed longer analgesia (P < .05). LMVVRVC0.75% presented higher time to reach maximum concentration and mean residence time than the remaining formulations with RVC 0.75% (P < .05), so LMVV was able to reduce systemic exposure of RVC due to slow release from this liposomal system. CONCLUSIONS: All new liposomal formulations containing 0.75% RVC were able to change the pharmacokinetics and enhance anesthesia duration due to slow release of RVC from liposomes without inducing significant toxic effects to local tissues.

Bupivacaine in alginate and chitosan nanoparticles: an in vivo evaluation of efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and local toxicity.

OBJECTIVE: This study reports a preclinical evaluation of an alginate/chitosan nanoparticle formulation containing NovaBupi®, a racemic bupivacaine (BVC) containing 25% dextrobupivacaine and 75% levobupivacaine. METHODS: New Zealand White rabbits (n=6) received intraoral or intrathecal injections of BVC 0.5% or BVC 0.5%-loaded alginate-chitosan nanoparticles (BVCALG). BVC plasma levels and pharmacokinetic parameters were determined in blood samples of these rabbits. An infraorbital nerve blockade was performed in male Wistar rats (n=7) with the same formulations and the vehicle (NPALG). Histological evaluation of local toxicity after 6 hours and 24 hours of the treatments was performed in rats' (n=6) oral tissues. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was observed between plasma concentrations and pharmacokinetic parameters (p>0.05) after intraoral injections. However, after intrathecal injection BVCALG changed approximately three times the values of volume of distribution and area under the curve (AUC0-t; p<0.05). The total analgesic effect of BVC after infraorbital nerve blockade was improved by 1.4-fold (p<0.001) with BVCALG. BVC and BVCALG did not induce significant local inflammatory reaction. CONCLUSION: The encapsulation of BVC prolongs the local anesthetic effect after infraorbital nerve blockade and altered the pharmacokinetics after intrathecal injection.

Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics Evaluation of Tramadol in Thermoreversible Gels.

We evaluated pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) induced by new formulations of tramadol (TR) in thermoreversible gels. The poloxamer- (PL-) tramadol systems were prepared by direct dispersion of the drug in solutions with PL 407 and PL 188. The evaluated formulations were as follows: F1: TR 2% in aqueous solution and F2: PL 407 (20%) + PL 188 (10%) + TR 2%; F3: PL 407 (25%) + PL 188 (5%) + TR 2%; F4: PL 407 (20%) + TR 2%. New Zealand White rabbits were divided into four groups (n = 6) and treated by subcutaneous route with F1, F2, F3, or F4 (10 µg·kg-1). PK evaluation used TR and M1 plasma levels. PD evaluation was performed with the measurement of both pupils' diameters. F2 showed higher TR plasma concentration after 180 minutes and presented lower M1 concentrations at almost all evaluated periods. Areas under the curve (ASC0-480 and ASC0-∞ ) and clearance of F2 presented differences compared to F1. F2 presented significant correlation (Pearson correlation) between the enhancement of TR and M1 concentrations and the decrease of pupil size (miosis). Thus, F2 was effective in altering pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics effects of TR.

Pharmacokinetic study of liposome-encapsulated and plain mepivacaine formulations injected intra-orally in volunteers.

OBJECTIVES: The pharmacokinetics of commercial and liposome-encapsulated mepivacaine (MVC) injected intra-orally in healthy volunteers was studied. METHODS: In this double blind, randomized cross-over study, 15 volunteers received, at four different sessions, 1.8 ml of the following formulations: 2% MVC with 1 : 100 000 epinephrine (MVC(2%EPI) ), 3% MVC (MVC(3%) ), 2% and 3% liposome-encapsulated MVC (MVC(2%LUV) and MVC(3%LUV) ). Blood samples were collected pre dose (0 min) and at 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, 120, 180, 240, 300, 360 min after injections. Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry was used to quantify plasma MVC concentrations. RESULTS: Pharmacokinetic analysis showed that the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and the areas under the curves (AUC(0-360) and AUC(0-∞)) after MVC(2%LUV) and MVC(2%EPI) injections were smaller (P < 0.05) than the equivalent figures for MVC(3%) and MVC(3%LUV). The time to maximum plasma concentration (Tmax) and the half-life of elimination (t½beta) obtained after the treatment with MVC(2%LUV), MVC(2%EPI), MVC(3%) and MVC(3%LUV) presented no statistically significant differences (P > 0.05). Cmax, AUC(0-360) and AUC(0-∞) after injection of the 2% formulations (MVC(2%LUV) and MVC(2%EPI) ) did not exhibit statistically significant differences (P > 0.05). The pharmacokinetics of MVC(2%LUV) were comparable to the pharmacokinetics of MVC(2%EPI). CONCLUSION: The liposomal formulation of 2% MVC exhibits similar systemic absorption to the local anesthetic with vasoconstrictor.

Bioequivalence of two enteric coated formulations of pantoprazole in healthy volunteers under fasting and fed conditions.

PURPOSE: To compare the bioavailability of two pantoprazole (CAS 102625-70-7) formulations (40 mg pantoprazole enteric coated tablets) under fasted and fed conditions as well as to evaluate the dissolution profile in biorelevant media. METHODS: The subjects received either 40 mg of the reference or of test formulation in fasting (n = 28) and fed (n=70) condition. The studies were conducted according to a single dose and randomized crossover design. Blood samples were collected up to 12 h after drug administration in fasting condition and up to 48 h in fed condition. Plasma concentrations of pantoprazole were determined by LC-MS/MS. Pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated from the observed plasma concentration-time profiles. Bioequivalence between the formulations in fasting and fed condition was assessed considering 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of means for lnCmax and lnAUC(0-t) within 0.8-1.25. Dissolution profiles were evaluated in biorelevant media [Fasting State Simulating Intestinal Fluid (FaSSIF) and Fed State Simulating Intestinal Fluid (FeSSIF)]. The sameness of the dissolution curves was assessed by f2 values between 50 and 100. RESULTS: Under fasting condition the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of means for the lnCmax, (0.94-1.03) and lnAUC(0-t) (0.89-0.99) was within the guideline range of bioequivalence (0.80-1.25). However, the data for lnCmax (0.51-0.76) and lnAUC(0-t) (0.68-0.90) under fed condition were not within the bioequivalence range. The postprandial study demonstrated a high intra-subject variability and in some subjects pantoprazole could not be detected for up to 24 h, although the dissolution profile of reference and test formulations presented a similar disposition in FaSSIF and FeSSIF as confirmed by the values of f2 higher than 50. CONCLUSION: The results demonstrated that the test formulation was bioequivalent to the reference in fasting condition but not in postprandial state. The dissolution profile in FaSSIF indicates that this biorelevant medium was more adequate to discriminate the in vivo disposition of pantoprazole than FeSSIF. Furthermore, the fed condition study had shown a pronounced influence of food in the absorption of pantoprazole after single oral dose administration.