Pharmacokinetic Comparison of Subcutaneous and Intravenous Nadroparin Administration for Thromboprophylaxis in Critically Ill Patients on Vasopressors.

INTRODUCTION: Critically ill patients are exposed to a high risk of developing thromboembolism. Moreover, standard prophylaxis with subcutaneous (SC) heparin is less efficient in patients requiring vasopressors. The aim is a comparison of pharmacokinetics between SC and intravenous (IV) applied nadroparin. METHODS: Thirty-eight ventilated ICU patients requiring vasopressor support were randomized into a single dose of nadroparin 3,800 IU (0.4 mL) subcutaneously (SC group) or 1,900 IU (0.2 mL) intravenously (IV group). Anti-factor Xa activity (anti-Xa) was observed over 24 h; data are stated as median (IQR). RESULTS: Peak anti-Xa was significantly higher in the IV group 0.42 (0.39-0.43) IU/mL than in the SC group 0.16 (0.09-0.18) IU/mL (p < 0.001). There was a trend towards higher area under the curve (AUC) of anti-Xa in the SC group 1.41 (0.41-1.80) IU/mL × h than in the IV group 1.04 (0.93-1.13) IU/mL × h (p = 0.08). In the SC group, there was a negative correlation between anti-Xa AUC and both capillary refill time Xa (r = -0.86) and norepinephrine dose (r = -0.68). In the IV group, anti-Xa decrease half-life was 1.6 (1.4-2.0) h. CONCLUSIONS: IV administration of 1,900 IU of nadroparin led to a predictable effective peak anti-Xa. After SC administration, anti-Xa was heterogeneous and significantly influenced by peripheral perfusion.

Comparison of Active Substance Losses and Total Weight Losses of Tablets Administered Via Feeding Tube.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Administration of tablets via feeding tube (FT) is often associated with significant drug losses, as was confirmed by weighing. The aim of this study was to measure the proportion of active substance losses (ASLs) in an in vitro model. METHODS: A film-coated tablet (FilmCT) containing clopidogrel (Trombex®) and a tablet with enteric coating (EntericCT) containing pantoprazole (Controloc®) were crushed in a mortar and transferred by method A (tablet powder was transferred into the beaker, poured into the syringe and water added) and method B (water was added into the mortar, suspension drawn into the syringe) and administered via FT in an in vitro model. Total losses were measured with analytical balance and, simultaneously, ASL were analyzed with high-performance liquid chromatography UV-detection (HPLC-UV). RESULTS: ASL was different to weighing only in the case of EntericCT prepared by method B (2.0 ± 4.2 and 10.7 ± 0.8% for HPLC-UV and weighing, respectively; p = 0.004). HPLC-UV confirmed significantly lower ASL when method B was used for either EntericCT (34.3 ± 7.2 vs. 2.0 ± 4.2%; p < 0.001) or FilmCT (14.1 ± 2.2 vs. 7.7 ± 4.1%; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Drug loss analysis with analytical balance may overestimate ASL, as was proved for EntericCT in this study. ASL were significantly lower when method B was used.