Pharmacokinetics and safety of fentanyl sublingual spray and fentanyl citrate intravenous: a multiple ascending dose study in opioid-naïve healthy volunteers.

OBJECTIVE: Fentanyl sublingual spray, with its rapid onset for pain relief, may be efficacious in the management of acute or post-operative pain. Because patients in these settings may be opioid-naïve, the study was conducted to determine the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of multiple dose administration of fentanyl sublingual spray in an opioid-naïve population. METHODS: Fentanyl sublingual spray (100 mcg, 200 mcg, and 400 mcg) and fentanyl citrate intravenous (IV; 50 mcg) were administered every 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0 h for up to three doses per cohort in opioid-naïve subjects (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02641340). Eight subjects in each cohort were randomly assigned (six subjects received fentanyl sublingual spray; two subjects received fentanyl citrate IV). Pharmacokinetic and safety-related pharmacodynamic assessments were performed through 24 h post-first dose. Safety assessments were collected through Day 7. RESULTS: Ninety-six opioid-naïve subjects, aged 20-55 years, with a body mass index of 18.7-31.5 kg/m2, participated in the study. Multiple doses of fentanyl sublingual spray (100, 200, and 400 mcg) were generally well tolerated. Hypoxia, observed in the 200-mcg and 400-mcg dose groups, increased with increasing doses and higher dosing frequency, but was readily managed by nasal cannula oxygenation. Overall, nausea increased with increasing doses, and ∼52.6% (10 out of 19) cases of nausea that occurred at the highest dose of 400 mcg were treated with concomitant medication. Overall, the reported adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of fentanyl. CONCLUSION: Fentanyl sublingual spray (100 mcg, 200 mg, and 400 mcg) administered every 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 h was generally well tolerated in an opioid-naïve population. The results suggest that doses of 200 mcg or lower may be safe for use in an opioid-naïve population.

Pharmacokinetics and safety of fentanyl sublingual spray and fentanyl citrate intravenous: a single ascending dose study in opioid-naïve healthy volunteers.

OBJECTIVE: Fentanyl sublingual spray offers rapid pain relief in opioid-tolerant cancer patients, and may be useful in acute or post-operative pain. Both opioid-naïve and non-tolerant patients are likely to receive opioids in these settings. Understanding the relationship between systemic exposure of fentanyl sublingual spray and effects on respiratory function in opioid-naïve or non-tolerant populations is important to ensure patient safety. This study evaluated single-dose fentanyl sublingual spray in opioid-naïve participants. RESEARCH DESIGN: Participants were randomized to receive single-dose fentanyl sublingual spray (100, 200, 400, 600, 800 mcg) or fentanyl citrate IV in one of five cohorts. Dosing occurred following a 10-h fast, with fasting continuing for 4 h post-dose. Dose proportionality was assessed using analysis of variance and linear regression techniques. PK assessments and safety monitoring were performed through 24 h post-dose. Safety assessments, including adverse event (AE) monitoring, occurred from dosing through Day 7. RESULTS: Fifty participants (19-53 years) received fentanyl sublingual spray or fentanyl citrate IV. Mean maximum plasma concentrations were reached between 0.27-0.60 h post-dose for fentanyl sublingual spray. Peak (Cmax) and total (AUC0-t, AUC0-∞) fentanyl exposures increased in a linear, but more than dose-proportional manner, with higher doses. The most common AEs were somnolence, nausea, and vomiting. All AEs were mild or moderate in severity. Doses at 400, 600, and 800 mcg were associated with nausea and vomiting, requiring pharmacologic intervention. Hypoxia episodes requiring nasal cannula oxygenation were observed with 600mcg and 800mcg doses. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, single-dose fentanyl sublingual spray (100-800 mcg) was generally well tolerated, with greater incidences of AEs (e.g. nausea, vomiting, hypoxia) at higher doses. Doses up to 200 mcg may be safely administered to healthy opioid-naïve individuals with routine monitoring; doses between 400-800 mcg may be administered in settings with nasal cannula oxygenation.

Effect of food on the pharmacokinetics of dronabinol oral solution versus dronabinol capsules in healthy volunteers.

Dronabinol is a pharmaceutical tetrahydrocannabinol originally developed as an oral capsule. A dronabinol oral solution was recently approved, and the effects of food on absorption and bioavailability of the oral solution versus capsules were compared in an open-label, single-dose, 3-period crossover study. Healthy volunteers were randomized to either dronabinol oral solution 4.25 mg (fed) or dronabinol capsule 5 mg (fed or fasted). Dosing was separated by a 7-day washout period. Plasma pharmacokinetics were evaluated for dronabinol and its major metabolite, 11-hydroxy-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (11-OH-Δ9-THC). Pharmacokinetic data were available for analysis in 54 volunteers. In the fed state, initial dronabinol absorption was faster with oral solution versus capsule (mean time to the first measurable concentration, 0.15 vs 2.02 hours, respectively), with 100% and 15% of volunteers, respectively, having detectable plasma dronabinol levels 30 minutes postdose. There was less interindividual variability in plasma dronabinol concentration during early absorption with oral solution versus capsule. Compared with the fasted state, mean area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to the last measurable concentration (AUC0-t ) increased by 2.1- and 2.4-fold for dronabinol oral solution and capsule, respectively, when taken with food. Mean time to maximum plasma concentration was similarly delayed for dronabinol oral solution with food (7.7 hours) and capsule with food (5.6 hours) versus capsule with fasting (1.7 hours). Under fed conditions, AUC0-t and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity were similar for the oral solution versus capsule based on 11-OH-Δ9-THC levels. An appreciable food effect was observed for dronabinol oral solution and capsules. Dronabinol oral solution may offer therapeutic benefit to patients, given its rapid and lower interindividual absorption variability versus dronabinol capsule.

Bioavailability study of dronabinol oral solution versus dronabinol capsules in healthy volunteers.

BACKGROUND: Dronabinol, a pharmaceutical Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, was originally developed as an oral capsule. This study evaluated the bioavailability of a new formulation, dronabinol oral solution, versus a dronabinol capsule formulation. METHODS: In an open-label, four-period, single-dose, crossover study, healthy volunteers were randomly assigned to one of two treatment sequences (T-R-T-R and R-T-R-T; T = dronabinol 4.25 mg oral solution and R = dronabinol 5 mg capsule) under fasted conditions, with a minimum 7-day washout period between doses. Analyses were performed on venous blood samples drawn 15 minutes to 48 hours postdose, and dronabinol concentrations were assayed by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. RESULTS: Fifty-one of 52 individuals had pharmacokinetic data for analysis. The 90% confidence interval of the geometric mean ratio (oral solution/capsule) for dronabinol was within the 80%-125% bioequivalence range for area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) from time zero to last measurable concentration (AUC0-t) and AUC from time zero to infinity (AUC0-∞). Maximum plasma concentration was also bioequivalent for the two dronabinol formulations. Intraindividual variability in AUC0-∞ was >60% lower for dronabinol oral solution 4.25 mg versus dronabinol capsule 5 mg. Plasma dronabinol concentrations were detected within 15 minutes postdose in 100% of patients when receiving oral solution and in <25% of patients when receiving capsules. CONCLUSION: Single-dose dronabinol oral solution 4.25 mg was bioequivalent to dronabinol capsule 5 mg under fasted conditions. Dronabinol oral solution formulation may provide an easy-to-swallow administration option with lower intraindividual variability as well as more rapid absorption versus dronabinol capsules.

A phase 2 prospective, randomized, double-blind trial comparing the effects of tranexamic acid with ecallantide on blood loss from high-risk cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CONSERV-2 Trial).

OBJECTIVE: Ecallantide is a recombinant peptide in the same class as aprotinin that inhibits plasma kallikrein, a major component of the contact coagulation and inflammatory cascades. Therefore, ecallantide was expected to reduce blood loss associated with cardiac surgery requiring cardiopulmonary bypass. METHODS: This prospective multinational, randomized, double-blind trial enrolled patients undergoing cardiac surgery using cardiopulmonary bypass for procedures associated with a high risk of bleeding. Patients were randomly assigned to ecallantide (n = 109) or tranexamic acid (high dose, n = 24; low dose, n = 85). Efficacy was assessed from the volume of packed red blood cells administered within the first 12 hours after surgery. RESULTS: The study was terminated early after the independent data safety and monitoring board observed a statistically significantly higher 30-day mortality in the ecallantide group (12%) than in the tranexamic acid groups (4%, P = .041). Patients receiving ecallantide received more packed red blood cells within 12 hours of surgery than tranexamic acid-treated patients: median = 900 mL (95% confidence interval, 600-1070) versus 300 mL (95% confidence interval, 0-523) (P < .001). Similar differences were seen at 24 hours and at discharge. Patients treated with the higher tranexamic acid dose received less packed red blood cells, 0 mL (95% confidence interval, 280-600), than the group treated with the lower dose, 400 mL (95% confidence interval, 0-400) (P = .008). No deaths occurred in the higher dose tranexamic acid group. CONCLUSIONS: Ecallantide was less effective at reducing perioperative blood loss than tranexamic acid. High-dose tranexamic acid was more effective than the low dose in reducing blood loss.