Clinical pharmacokinetics of narcotic agonist-antagonist drugs

Low-dose naltrexone for treatment of pain in patients with fibromyalgia: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study

Introduction

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a chronic fluctuating, nociplastic pain condition. Naltrexone is a µ-opioid-receptor antagonist; preliminary studies have indicated a pain-relieving effect of low-dose naltrexone (LDN) in patients with FM. The impetus for studying LDN is the assumption of analgesic efficacy and thus reduction of adverse effects seen from conventional pharmacotherapy.

Objectives

First, to examine if LDN is associated with analgesic efficacy compared with control in the treatment of patients with FM. Second, to ascertain the analgesic efficacy of LDN in an experimental pain model in patients with FM evaluating the competence of the descending inhibitory pathways compared with controls. Third, to examine the pharmacokinetics of LDN.

Methods

The study used a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover design and had a 3-phase setup. The first phase included baseline assessment and a treatment period (days -3 to 21), the second phase a washout period (days 22-32), and the third phase a baseline assessment followed by a treatment period (days 33-56). Treatment was with either LDN 4.5 mg or an inactive placebo given orally once daily. The primary outcomes were Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire revised (FIQR) scores and summed pain intensity ratings (SPIR).

Results

Fifty-eight patients with FM were randomized. The median difference (IQR) for FIQR scores between LDN and placebo treatment was -1.65 (18.55; effect size = 0.15; P = 0.3). The median difference for SPIR scores was -0.33 (6.33; effect size = 0.13; P = 0.4).

Conclusion

Outcome data did not indicate any clinically relevant analgesic efficacy of the LDN treatment in patients with FM.

Buprenorphine: Far Beyond the "Ceiling"

Chronic pain, including neuropathic pain, represents an untreated disease with important repercussions on the quality of life and huge costs on the national health system. It is well known that opioids are the most powerful analgesic drugs, but they represent the second or third line in neuropathic pain, that remain difficult to manage. Moreover, these drugs show several side effects that limit their use. In addition, opioids possess addictive properties that are associated with misuse and drug abuse. Among available opioids compounds, buprenorphine has been suggested advantageous for a series of clinical reasons, including the effectiveness in neuropathic pain. Some properties are partly explained by its unique pharmacological characteristics. However, questions on the dynamic profile remain to be answered. Pharmacokinetics optimization strategies, and additional potentialities, are still to be explored. In this paper, we attempt to conceptualize the potential undiscovered dynamic profile of buprenorphine.

Pharmacokinetic comparison of nalbuphine with single injection and patient-controlled analgesia mimic method in healthy Chinese volunteers

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Nalbuphine is a mu (μ) receptor partial antagonist/kappa (κ) receptor agonist analgesic and can be administered as a single injection or using patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) in the clinical setting. However, differences in the pharmacokinetics of the two administration methods are unclear. Here, a clinical trial was performed to compare the pharmacokinetic characteristics and superiority of nalbuphine with a single-injection or PCA-mimic method to provide a reference for the selection of an appropriate administration method.

METHODS

Twenty healthy individuals were divided into two groups and injected with 10 mg nalbuphine intravenously using a single-injection or a PCA-mimic method (2 mg once for five times with a 30-min interval). Blood samples were collected, and safety was investigated. The liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry was adopted to determine the concentration of nalbuphine in plasma.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The maximum concentration (C_max ) and area under concentration-time curve (AUC_0-t ) values of nalbuphine in the single-injection and PCA groups were as follows: C_max , 81.3 ± 24.7 and 39.8 ± 6.4 ng/ml, respectively; moreover, AUC_0-t , 110.3 ± 19.5 and 128.3 ± 23.0 h ng/ml, respectively. The effective analgesic concentration durations (EACDs) for the two administration methods were 1.39 ± 0.64 and 1.96 ± 0.91 h, respectively. Nalbuphine was well tolerated, and improvements were observed in the PCA group.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Compared with those in the single-injection group, the AUC_0-t and EACDs in the PCA group were similar, whereas C_max was decreased significantly. Therefore, the PCA method was more suitable for the clinical application of nalbuphine injection owing to the superiority of lower concentration fluctuation and the improved safety profile.

Gender-related issues in the pharmacology of new anti-obesity drugs

Four new medicines-liraglutide, lorcaserin, bupropion/naltrexone, and phentermine/topiramate-have been recently added to the pharmacological arsenal for obesity treatment and could represent important tools to manage this epidemic disease. To achieve satisfactory anti-obesity goals, the use of these new medicines should be optimized and tailored to specific patient subpopulations also by applying dose adjustments if needed. In the present review, we posit that gender could be among the factors influencing the activity of the new obesity drugs both because of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic factors. Although evidence from premarketing clinical studies suggested that no dose adjustment by gender is necessary for any of these new medicines, these studies were not specifically designed to identify gender-related differences. This observation, together with the strong theoretical background supporting the hypothesis of a gender-dimorphic response, strongly call upon an urgent need of new real-life data on gender-related difference in the pharmacology of these new obesity drugs.

Treating Chronic Pain: An Overview of Clinical Studies Centered on the Buprenorphine Option

The buprenorphine receptor binding profile is unique in that it binds to all three major opioid receptors (mu, kappa, delta), and also binds to the orphan-like receptor, the receptor for orphanin FQ/nociceptin, with lower affinity. Within the mu receptor group, buprenorphine analgesia in rodents is dependent on the recently discovered arylepoxamide receptor target in brain, which involves a truncated 6-transmembrane mu receptor gene protein, distinguishing itself from morphine and most other mu opioids. Although originally designed as an analgesic, buprenorphine has mainly been used for opioid maintenance therapy and only now is increasingly recognized as an effective analgesic with an improved therapeutic index relative to certain potent opioids. Albeit a second-, third-, or fourth-line analgesic, buprenorphine is a reasonable choice in certain clinical situations. Transdermal patches and buccal film formulations are now commercially available as analgesics. This review discusses buprenorphine pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics, use in certain populations, and provides a synopsis of systematic reviews and randomized analgesic trials. We briefly discuss postoperative management in patients receiving buprenorphine maintenance therapy, opioid equivalence to buprenorphine, rotations to buprenorphine from other opioids, and clinical relevance of buprenorphine-related QTc interval changes.

The effectiveness of buprenorphine for treating cancer pain: an abridged Cochrane review

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of buprenorphine for cancer pain in adults and children.

METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science, ISI BIOSIS, ClinicalTrials.gov, metaRegister of Controlled Trials, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the Proceedings of the Congress of the European Federation of International Association for the Study of Pain to early 2015.

RESULTS

We included 19 randomised controlled trials comparing buprenorphine with placebo, buprenorphine or another active drug for cancer pain. The trials included 1421 patients and examined 16 different intervention comparisons. Of the 11 studies that compared buprenorphine to another drug, 5, 3 and 3 studies, respectively, found that buprenorphine was superior, no different or inferior to the alternative treatment in side effects profile or patient preference/acceptability. Pain intensity ratings did not differ significantly between intramuscular buprenorphine and buprenorphine suppository, although intramuscular treatment was associated with more adverse events (1 study). One study found faster onset of pain relief after sublingual than subdermal buprenorphine, with similar analgesia duration and adverse event rates. 2 studies found transdermal buprenorphine superior to placebo, whereas a third study found no difference between placebo and different doses of transdermal buprenorphine. No clear dose-response relationship was found for transdermal buprenorphine. The quality of this evidence base was limited by under-reporting, small sample sizes and attrition.

CONCLUSIONS

Buprenorphine might be considered as a fourth-line option compared with the more standard therapies of morphine, oxycodone and fentanyl, and even then it would only be suitable for some patients.

Buprenorphine for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Opioid drugs, including buprenorphine, are commonly used to treat neuropathic pain, and are considered effective by some professionals. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for buprenorphine, at any dose, and by any route of administration. Other opioids are considered in separate reviews.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of buprenorphine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 11 June 2015, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing any oral dose or formulation of buprenorphine with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We did not carry out any pooled analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Searches identified 10 published studies, and one study with results in ClinicalTrials.gov. None of these 11 studies satisfied our inclusion criteria, and so we included no studies in the review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that buprenorphine has any efficacy in any neuropathic pain condition.

Buprenorphine for treating cancer pain

BACKGROUND

Many patients with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong analgesics. Buprenorphine, fentanyl and morphine are examples of strong opioids used for cancer pain relief. However, strong opioids are ineffective as pain treatment in all patients and are not well-tolerated by all patients. The aim of this Cochrane review is to assess whether buprenorphine is associated with superior, inferior or equal pain relief and tolerability compared to other analgesic options for patients with cancer pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of buprenorphine for pain in adults and children with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library) issue 12 or 12 2014, MEDLINE (via OVID) 1948 to 20 January 2015, EMBASE (via OVID) 1980 to 20 January 2015, ISI Web of Science (SCI-EXPANDED & CPCI-S) to 20 January 2015, ISI BIOSIS 1969 to 20 January 2015. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov/; metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (http://www.controlled-trials.com/mrct/), the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal (http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/) and the Proceedings of the Congress of the European Federation of International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP; via European Journal of Pain Supplements) on 16 February 2015. We checked the bibliographic references of identified studies as well as relevant studies and systematic reviews to find additional trials not identified by the electronic searches. We contacted authors of included studies for other relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials, with parallel-group or crossover design, comparing buprenorphine (any formulation and any route of administration) with placebo or an active drug (including buprenorphine) for cancer background pain in adults and children.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data pertaining to study design, participant details (including age, cancer characteristics, previous analgesic medication and setting), interventions (including details about titration) and outcomes, and independently assessed the quality of the included studies according to standard Cochrane methodology. As it was not feasible to meta-analyse the data, we summarised the results narratively. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

In this Cochrane review we identified 19 relevant studies including a total of 1421 patients that examined 16 different intervention comparisons.Of the studies that compared buprenorphine to another drug, 11 studies performed comparative analyses between the randomised groups, and five studies found that buprenorphine was superior to the comparison treatment. Three studies found no differences between buprenorphine and the comparison drug, while another three studies found treatment with buprenorphine to be inferior to the alternative treatment in terms of the side effects profile or patients preference/acceptability.Of the studies that compared different doses or formulations/routes of administration of buprenorphine, pain intensity ratings did not differ significantly between intramuscular buprenorphine and buprenorphine suppository. However, the average severity of dizziness, nausea, vomiting and adverse events as a total were all significantly higher in the intramuscular group relatively to the suppository group (one study).Sublingual buprenorphine was associated with faster onset of pain relief compared to subdermal buprenorphine, with similar duration analgesia and no significant differences in adverse event rates reported between the treatments (one study).In terms of transdermal buprenorphine, two studies found it superior to placebo, whereas a third study found no difference between placebo and different doses of transdermal buprenorphine.The studies that examined different doses of transdermal buprenorphine did not report a clear dose-response relationship.The quality of this evidence base was limited by under-reporting of most bias assessment items (e.g., the patient selection items), by small sample sizes in several included studies, by attrition (with data missing from 8.2% of the enrolled/randomised patients for efficacy and from 14.6% for safety) and by limited or no reporting of the expected outcomes in a number of cases. The evidence for all the outcomes was very low quality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence, it is difficult to say where buprenorphine fits in the treatment of cancer pain with strong opioids. However, it might be considered to rank as a fourth-line option compared to the more standard therapies of morphine, oxycodone and fentanyl, and even there it would only be suitable for some patients. However, palliative care patients are often heterogeneous and complex, so having a number of analgesics available that can be given differently increases patient and prescriber choice. In particular, the sublingual and injectable routes seemed to have a more definable analgesic effect, whereas the transdermal route studies left more questions.

Buprenorphine for treating cancer pain

BACKGROUND

Many patients with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong analgesics. Buprenorphine, fentanyl and morphine are examples of strong opioids used for cancer pain relief. However, strong opioids are ineffective as pain treatment in all patients and are not well-tolerated by all patients. The aim of this Cochrane review is to assess whether buprenorphine is associated with superior, inferior or equal pain relief and tolerability compared to other analgesic options for patients with cancer pain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of buprenorphine for pain in adults and children with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library) issue 12 or 12 2014, MEDLINE (via OVID) 1948 to 20 January 2015, EMBASE (via OVID) 1980 to 20 January 2015, ISI Web of Science (SCI-EXPANDED & CPCI-S) to 20 January 2015, ISI BIOSIS 1969 to 20 January 2015. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov/; metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (http://www.controlled-trials.com/mrct/), the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal (http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/) and the Proceedings of the Congress of the European Federation of International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP; via European Journal of Pain Supplements) on 16 February 2015. We checked the bibliographic references of identified studies as well as relevant studies and systematic reviews to find additional trials not identified by the electronic searches. We contacted authors of included studies for other relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials, with parallel-group or crossover design, comparing buprenorphine (any formulation and any route of administration) with placebo or an active drug (including buprenorphine) for cancer background pain in adults and children.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data pertaining to study design, participant details (including age, cancer characteristics, previous analgesic medication and setting), interventions (including details about titration) and outcomes, and independently assessed the quality of the included studies according to standard Cochrane methodology. As it was not feasible to meta-analyse the data, we summarised the results narratively. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

In this Cochrane review we identified 19 relevant studies including a total of 1421 patients that examined 16 different intervention comparisons.Of the studies that compared buprenorphine to another drug, 11 studies performed comparative analyses between the randomised groups, and five studies found that buprenorphine was superior to the comparison treatment. Three studies found no differences between buprenorphine and the comparison drug, while another three studies found treatment with buprenorphine to be inferior to the alternative treatment in terms of the side effects profile or patients preference/acceptability.Of the studies that compared different doses or formulations/routes of administration of buprenorphine, pain intensity ratings did not differ significantly between intramuscular buprenorphine and buprenorphine suppository. However, the average severity of dizziness, nausea, vomiting and adverse events as a total were all significantly higher in the intramuscular group relatively to the suppository group (one study).Sublingual buprenorphine was associated with faster onset of pain relief compared to subdermal buprenorphine, with similar duration analgesia and no significant differences in adverse event rates reported between the treatments (one study).In terms of transdermal buprenorphine, two studies found it superior to placebo, whereas a third study found no difference between placebo and different doses of transdermal buprenorphine.The studies that examined different doses of transdermal buprenorphine did not report a clear dose-response relationship.The quality of this evidence base was limited by under-reporting of most bias assessment items (e.g., the patient selection items), by small sample sizes in several included studies, by attrition (with data missing from 8.2% of the enrolled/randomised patients for efficacy and from 14.6% for safety) and by limited or no reporting of the expected outcomes in a number of cases. The evidence for all the outcomes was very low quality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence, it is difficult to say where buprenorphine fits in the treatment of cancer pain with strong opioids. However, it might be considered to rank as a fourth-line option compared to the more standard therapies of morphine, oxycodone and fentanyl, and even there it would only be suitable for some patients. However, palliative care patients are often heterogeneous and complex, so having a number of analgesics available that can be given differently increases patient and prescriber choice. In particular, the sublingual and injectable routes seemed to have a more definable analgesic effect, whereas the transdermal route studies left more questions.

Intravenous buprenorphine and norbuprenorphine pharmacokinetics in humans

BACKGROUND

Prescribed sublingual (SL) buprenorphine is sometimes diverted for intravenous (IV) abuse, but no human pharmacokinetic data are available following high-dose IV buprenorphine.

METHODS

Plasma was collected for 72 h after administration of placebo or 2, 4, 8, 12, or 16 mg IV buprenorphine in escalating order (single-blind, double-dummy) in 5 healthy male non-dependent opioid users. Buprenorphine and its primary active metabolite, norbuprenorphine, were quantified by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry with limits of quantitation of 0.1 μg/L.

RESULTS

Maximum buprenorphine concentrations (mean ± SE) were detected 10 min after 2, 4, 8, 12, 16 mg IV: 19.3 ± 1.0, 44.5 ± 4.8, 85.2 ± 7.7, 124.6 ± 16.6, and 137.7 ± 18.8 μg/L, respectively. Maximum norbuprenorphine concentrations occurred 10-15 min (3.7 ± 0.7 μg/L) after 16 mg IV administration.

CONCLUSIONS

Buprenorphine concentrations increased in a significantly linear dose-dependent manner up to 12 mg IV buprenorphine. Thus, previously demonstrated pharmacodynamic ceiling effects (over 2-16 mg) are not due to pharmacokinetic adaptations within this range, although they may play a role at doses higher than 12 mg.

Once-weekly transdermal buprenorphine application results in sustained and consistent steady-state plasma levels

CONTEXT

Transdermal formulations of buprenorphine offer controlled delivery of buprenorphine for sustained analgesic efficacy with reduced adverse events (AEs) compared with the other modes of administration. A buprenorphine transdermal system (BTDS) delivering 5, 10, or 20 mcg/hour for seven days is now marketed in the U.S. as Butrans(®) (Lohmann Therapie-System AG, Andernach Germany), a Schedule III single-entity opioid analgesic indicated for the management of moderate and chronic pain in patients requiring continuous around-the-clock analgesia for an extended period.

OBJECTIVES

This was a randomized open-label study in healthy subjects to characterize the steady-state buprenorphine pharmacokinetics after the delivery of three consecutive seven-day BTDS applications.

METHODS

Thirty-seven subjects were randomized to receive three consecutive BTDS 10 mcg/hour (BTDS 10) patches applied to the deltoid or upper back for seven days each. Blood samples for buprenorphine concentration measurements were taken. Safety was assessed using recorded AEs, clinical laboratory test results, vital signs, pulse oximetry, physical examinations, and electrocardiograms. Patch adhesion assessments were taken.

RESULTS

Analysis of Cmin demonstrated that steady state was reached during the first BTDS 10 application. No significant difference in Cmin was observed across the three applications. Total and peak plasma buprenorphine exposures were similar after each of the seven-day administrations of BTDS.

CONCLUSION

Three consecutive once-weekly applications of BTDS 10 provided consistent and sustained delivery of buprenorphine. Steady-state plasma concentrations were reached within 48 hours of the first application of BTDS 10. Patch adhesion analysis confirmed the appropriateness of the seven-day application period. Overall, BTDS 10 was safe and well tolerated.

Therapeutic drug monitoring for drugs used in the treatment of substance-related disorders: literature review using a therapeutic drug monitoring appropriateness rating scale

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of drugs for the treatment of substance-related disorders is moderate at best. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) could be an instrument to improve outcomes. Because TDM for most of those drugs is not established, the authors reviewed the literature and built a rating scale to detect the potential added value of TDM for these pharmacologic agents.

METHODS

A literature search was performed for acamprosate, bupropion, buprenorphine, clomethiazole, disulfiram, methadone, naltrexone, and varenicline. The rating scale included 22 items and was divided in five categories: efficacy, toxicity, pharmacokinetics, patient characteristics, and cost-effectiveness. Three reference substances with established TDM were similarly assessed for comparison: clozapine, lithium, and nortriptyline. The three reference substances achieved scores of 15, 12, and 14 points, respectively.

RESULTS

Drugs for treatment of substance-related disorders achieved 3 to 17 points, 17 for methadone, 11 for buprenorphine, 10 for disulfiram, also 10 for naltrexone for the indication opioid-dependence and 9 for the indication alcohol dependence as well as bupropion, 7 points for acamprosate, 6 points for clomethiazole, and 3 for varenicline.

CONCLUSIONS

It is concluded that systematic evaluation of drug- and patient-related variables with the new rating scale can estimate the appropriateness of TDM. Because their rating revealed similar scores as the three reference drugs, it is proposed that TDM should be established for bupropion, buprenorphine, disulfiram or a metabolite, methadone, and naltrexone. An objective rating of drug- and patient-related characteristics could help laboratories focus their method development on the most likely drugs to require TDM along with a thorough drug use evaluation.

Comparison of the opioid receptor antagonist properties of naltrexone and 6 beta-naltrexol in morphine-naïve and morphine-dependent mice

It has been proposed that on chronic morphine treatment the micro-opioid receptor becomes constitutively active, and as a consequence, the opioid withdrawal response arises from a reduction in the level of this constitutively active receptor. In support of this, the putative micro-opioid receptor inverse agonist naltrexone has been shown to precipitate more severe withdrawal behavior in mice than the putative neutral receptor antagonist 6 beta-naltrexol. In the present study naltrexone and 6 beta-naltrexol were compared in NIH Swiss mice to test the hypothesis that their differential ability to precipitate withdrawal is due to differences in their in vivo opioid receptor antagonist potencies caused by differential access to micro-opioid receptors in the central nervous system and not necessarily by intrinsic differences in their opioid receptor activity. In naïve mice both compounds had similar potencies to antagonize morphine-induced antinociception in the hot plate and warm-water tail-withdrawal assays when measured under equilibrium conditions and afforded similar calculated apparent in vivo micro-opioid receptor affinities. In morphine-dependent mice both compounds precipitated withdrawal jumping but naltrexone was between 10- and 100-fold more potent than 6 beta-naltrexol. A similar potency difference was seen for other withdrawal behaviors. Both naltrexone and 6 beta-naltrexol at 1 mg/kg reversed antinociception induced by the long-lasting micro-opioid receptor agonist BU72 in the warm-water tail-withdrawal assay, but antagonism by naltrexone was 6-fold more rapid in onset at equal doses. Since the compounds have similar affinity for the micro-opioid receptor in vivo, the results suggest that the differences observed between the ability of naltrexone and 6 beta-naltrexol to precipitate withdrawal in the mouse may be explained by differential onset of receptor antagonist action.

[(3)H]Alvimopan binding to the micro opioid receptor: comparative binding kinetics of opioid antagonists

Alvimopan is a novel peripheral micro opioid antagonist in clinical development for the management of post-operative ileus and opioid-induced bowel dysfunction. We hypothesized that the long duration of action of alvimopan might be related to a slower dissociation rate from the micro opioid receptor compared to other shorter acting antagonists. The dissociation rate of alvimopan from the micro opioid receptor (t(1/2)=30--44 min) was comparable to that of the long acting partial agonist buprenorphine (t(1/2)=44 min), but was slower than those of the antagonists naloxone (t(1/2)=0.82 min) and N-methylnaltrexone (t(1/2)=0.46 min). Also, increases in the apparent affinities and potencies of buprenorphine and alvimopan, but not of naloxone and methylnaltrexone, were observed upon preincubation with the micro opioid receptor. Consistent with its long duration of action, alvimopan has a slow dissociation rate from the micro opioid receptor compared to other shorter acting antagonists and may be more potent if administered prior to dosing with exogenous opioids.

High-dose buprenorphine: perioperative precautions and management strategies

Buprenorphine has been in clinical use in anaesthesia for several decades. Recently, the high-dose sublingual formulation (Subutex, Reckitt Benckiser, Slough, U.K.) has been increasingly used as maintenance therapy in opioid dependence, as an alternative to methadone and other pharmacological therapies. Buprenorphine has unique pharmacological properties making it well suited for use as a maintenance therapy in opioid dependence. However, these same properties may cause difficulty in the perioperative management of pain. Buprenorphine is a partial opioid agonist, attenuating the effects of supplemental illicit or therapeutic opioid agonists. As a result of its high receptor affinity, supplemental opioids do not readily displace buprenorphine from the opioid receptor in standard doses. High-dose buprenorphine has an extended duration of action that prolongs both of these effects. The perioperative management of patients stabilized on high-dose buprenorphine and undergoing surgery requires consideration of the likely analgesic requirements. Where possible the buprenorphine should be continued. Pain management should focus on maximizing non-opioid analgesia, local anaesthesia and non-pharmacological techniques. Where pain may not be adequately relieved by these methods, the addition of a full opioid agonist such as fentanyl or morphine at appropriate doses should be considered, accompanied by close monitoring in a high dependency unit. In situations where this regimen is unlikely to be effective, preoperative conversion to morphine or methadone may be an option. Where available, liaison with a hospital-based alcohol and drug service should always be considered.

Sublingual Buprenorphine Is Effective in the Treatment of Chronic Pain Syndrome

Many patients with chronic pain have less than optimal therapeutic outcomes after prolonged treatment with opiate analgesics. Worsening of pain perception, functional capacity, and mood often result. Medical detoxification is often undertaken in this situation. Ninety-five consecutive patients (49 men and 46 women; age range, 26-84) with chronic noncancer pain (maldynia) were referred by local pain clinics for detoxification from long-term opiate analgesic (LTOA) therapy. All patients had failed treatment as manifest by increasing pain levels, worsening functional capacity, and, in 8%, the emergence of opiate addiction. Length of prior LTOA therapy ranged from 1.5 to 27 years (mean, 8.8 years). After a minimum of 12 hours of abstinence from all opiate analgesics, patients were given low doses of sublingual (SL) buprenorphine or buprenorphine/naloxone (Reckitt Benckiser). Maintenance dosing was individualized to treat chronic pain. Daily SL dose of buprenorphine ranged from 4 to 16 mg (mean, 8 mg) in divided doses. Mean duration of treatment is 8.8 months (range, 2.4-16.6 months). At clinic appointments, patients were assessed for pain reports, functional capacity, and mood inventory. Eighty-six percent of patients experienced moderate to substantial relief of pain accompanied by both improved mood and functioning. Patient and family satisfaction was robust. Only 6 patients discontinued therapy secondary to side effects and/or exacerbation of pain. In this open-label study, SL buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone were well tolerated and safe and appeared to be effective in the treatment of chronic pain patients refractory to LTOA.

Buprenorphine: considerations for pain management

New effective analgesics are needed for the treatment of pain. Buprenorphine, a partial mu-opioid agonist which has been in clinical use for over 25 years, has been found to be amenable to new formulation technology based on its physiochemical and pharmacological profile. Buprenorphine is marketed as parenteral, sublingual, and transdermal formulations. Unlike full mu-opioid agonists, at higher doses, buprenorphine's physiological and subjective effects, including euphoria, reach a plateau. This ceiling may limit the abuse potential and may result in a wider safety margin. Buprenorphine has been used for the treatment of acute and chronic pain, as a supplement to anesthesia, and for behavioral and psychiatric disorders including treatment for opioid addiction. Prolonged use of buprenorphine can result in physical dependence. However, withdrawal symptoms appear to be mild to moderate in intensity compared with those of full mu agonists. Overdoses have primarily involved buprenorphine taken in combination with other central nervous system depressants.

Treatment of pain in patients with renal insufficiency: The World Health Organization three-step ladder adapted

The World Health Organization established official recommendations for managing pain in cancer patients. Since then, this stepladder approach has been widely adopted as a conceptual framework to treat all types of pain. However, those guidelines have not been critically evaluated for use in patients with renal insufficiency. In these patients, the questions of drug dosage adjustment and renal toxicity must be considered. This article reviews the pharmacokinetics of major analgesic drugs and data on their use and/or behavior in renal failure and considers their potential nephrotoxicity. Finally, according to available data in the international literature on pharmacokinetics, recommendations for dosage adjustment in patients with renal failure, and their potential nephrotoxicity, the World Health Organization three-step ladder for the treatment of pain was modified and adapted for patients with impaired renal function. Perspective This well-known treatment strategy now adapted for use in patients with renal insufficiency should secure and rationalize pain treatment in those patients.

Preparation of biodegradable microspheres and matrix devices containing naltrexone

In this study, the use of biodegradable polymers for microencapsulation of naltrexone using solvent evaporation technique is investigated. The use of naltrexone microspheres for the preparation of matrix devices is also studied. For this purpose, poly(L-lactide) (PLA) microspheres containing naltrexone prepared by solvent evaporation technique were compressed at temperatures above the Tg of the polymer. The effect of different process parameters, such as drug/polymer ratio and stirring rate during preparation of microspheres, on the morphology, size distribution, and in vitro drug release of microspheres was studied. As expected, stirring rate influenced particle size distribution of microspheres and hence drug release profiles. By increasing the stirring speed from 400 to 1200 rpm, the mean diameter of microspheres decreased from 251 microm to 104 microm. The drug release rate from smaller microspheres was faster than from larger microspheres. However, drug release from microspheres with low drug content (20% wt/wt) was not affected by the particle size of microspheres. Increasing the drug content of microspheres from 20% to 50% wt/wt led to significantly faster drug release from microspheres. It was also shown that drug release from matrix devices prepared by compression of naltrexone microspheres is much slower than that of microspheres. No burst release was observed with matrix devices. Applying higher compression force, when compressing microspheres to produce tablets, resulted in lower drug release from matrix devices. The results suggest that by regulating different variables, desired release profiles of naltrexone can be achieved using a PLA microparticulate system or matrix devices.

A comparison of the effects of 6-beta naltrexol and naltrexone on the consumption of ethanol or sucrose using a limited-access procedure in rats

We recently reported that 6-beta naltrexol, the major metabolite of naltrexone in humans, reduced ethanol consumption in rats. Two new experiments were designed to compare 6-beta naltrexol and naltrexone across three dose levels on an ethanol or sucrose baseline using a limited-access procedure in Wistar rats. The results of Experiment 1 showed that both 6-beta naltrexol and naltrexone reduced ethanol consumption across a range of doses. An in vivo assay showed that naltrexone was approximately 25 times more potent than 6-beta naltrexol at comparable ED50 doses. In addition, there was no indication of systematic development of tolerance to the effect of either drug across the 4 days of drug administration. In Experiment 2, both 6-beta naltrexol and naltrexone reduced the consumption of a sucrose solution using a limited-access procedure. The implications of these data for the development of pharmacotherapeutic agents capable of reducing drinking in recovering alcoholics are discussed.

Serum time course of naltrexone and 6 beta-naltrexol levels during long-term treatment in drug addicts

The pharmacokinetics of naltrexone have been scarcely explored in patients during chronic treatment despite the observation that the pharmacological effect of the drug is related to its plasma concentrations. In this study we investigated the time course of serum levels of naltrexone and its active metabolite, 6 beta-naltrexol, in 13 heroin addicts (3 F, 10 M; age 22-32 years) in the 24 h after 100 mg of naltrexone orally. Six patients were studied once, at different times during chronic treatment, whereas in seven patients the study was done at the beginning and after 1 month of naltrexone treatment. Four of these patients also repeated the study after 3 months of naltrexone treatment. Serum naltrexone and 6 beta-naltrexol were assayed by GLC with a nitrogen-phosphorus detector. Our results showed large differences among patients in serum naltrexone and 6 beta-naltrexol levels. On the other hand, there were no differences in serum time course of both substances in the same patient over 3 months. Peak levels and AUCs of naltrexone were lower than those of 6 beta-naltrexol in ten addicts and higher than those of the metabolite in three patients. No significant differences in the apparent half-lives of the two drugs were detected among groups. These data are consistent with the occurrence of a decreased first-pass metabolism of naltrexone in three patients leading to a larger availability of an oral dose. The increased bioavailability of the drug is not very important for opioid receptor antagonist activity but may play a role in naltrexone treatment safety.

Subnanogram-concentration measurement of buprenorphine in human plasma by electron-capture capillary gas chromatography: application to pharmacokinetics of sublingual buprenorphine

We describe a sensitive and specific method for the measurement of buprenorphine in human plasma. The method involves a structural analog as an internal calibrator, careful control of pH during sample extraction to maximize drug recovery, and back-extraction into acid followed by reextraction to eliminate endogenous interferences. After evaporation, sample residues are derivatized with heptafluorobutyric anhydride and analyzed by separation on a fused-silica polymethylsiloxane capillary column and electron-capture detection. Calibration curves were linear in the ranges 0.1–2.0 μg/L and 2.0–20 μg/L, with within-run CVs of 9.7% at 0.1 μg/L to 5.0% at 20 μg/L, and total CVs of 15.9% at 0.1 μg/L to 6.5% at 10 μg/L. The limit of quantification was 0.1 μg/L. The method was utilized in studies to determine the absolute bioavailability of sublingual doses of 2 mg of buprenorphine in 1 mL of 300 mL/L ethanol and the bioequivalence of sublingual 8-mg tablet and 300 mL/L ethanol solution formulations.

Screening for drugs of abuse (II): Cannabinoids, lysergic acid diethylamide, buprenorphine, methadone, barbiturates, benzodiazepines and other drugs

Requirements for the provision of an efficient and reliable service for drugs of abuse screening in urine have been summarized in Part I of this review. The requirements included rapid turn-around times, good communications between requesting clinicians and the laboratory, and participation in quality assessment schemes. In addition, the need for checking/confirmation of positive results obtained for preliminary screening methods was stressed. This aspect of the service has assumed even greater importance with widespread use of dip-stick technology and the increasing number of reasons for which drug screening is performed. Many of these additional uses of drug screening have possible serious legal implications, for example, screening school pupils, professional footballers, parents involved in child custody cases, persons applying for renewal of a driving licence after disqualification for a drug-related offence, doctors seeking re-registration after removal for drug abuse, and checking for compliance with terms of probation orders; as well as pre-employment screening and work-place testing. In many cases these requests will be received from a general practitioner or drug clinic with no indication of the reason for which testing has been requested. This also raises the serious problems of a chain of custody, provision of two samples, stability of samples, and secure and lengthy storage of samples in the laboratory-samples may be requested by legal authorities several months after the initial testing. The need for confirmation of positive results is now widely accepted but it may be equally important to confirm unexpected negative results. Failure to detect the presence of maintenance drugs may lead to the patient being discharged from a drug treatment clinic and, if attendance at the clinic is one of the terms of continued employment, to dismissal. It seems likely that increasing abuse of drugs and the efforts of regulatory authorities to control this, will lead to the manufacture of more designer drugs. Production of substituted phenethylamines was facilitated by the drug makers' cook book, 'PIHKAL' (Phenethylamines I Have Known And Loved) by Dr Alexander Shulgin and Ann Shulgin, and production of substituted tryptamines is promised in their next book, TIHKAL. Looking to the future, laboratories will need to ensure that they can detect and quantitate an ever-increasing number of drugs and related substances. The question of confidence in results of drugs of abuse testing raised in 1993 by Watson has assumed even greater importance as a result of attention focused on the OJ Simpson trial in Los Angeles. Toxicological investigations are likely to be challenged more frequently in the future. Even if analyses have been performed by GC-MS, there is a need to establish the level of match between the spectrum of the unknown substance and a library spectrum which is considered acceptable for legal purposes. It will also be essential to ensure that computer libraries contain spectra for all substances likely to be encountered in drugs of abuse screening.

Involvement of cytochrome P450 3A4 in N-dealkylation of buprenorphine in human liver microsomes

Buprenorphine is a long acting analgesic of the opiate family. Recently, it has been proposed for the opioid dependency treatment at a large scale. The drug is extensively metabolized by the hepatic cytochrome P450 in man, yielding a N-dealkylated metabolite, norbuprenorphine. The specific forms of P450 involved in this oxidative N-demethylation were examined in a panel of 18 human liver microsomal preparations previously characterized with respect to their P450 contents. Buprenorphine was N-dealkylated with an apparent Km of 89 +/- 45 microM (n = 3). The metabolic rates were 3.46 +/- 0.43 nmol/(min x mg of protein). This metabolic pathway was strongly correlated with 6 catalytic activities specific to P450 3A4 and with the immunodetectable P450 3A content of liver microsomal samples (r = 0.87). Buprenorphine metabolism was 62-71% inhibited by three mechanism-based inhibitors (TAO, erythralosamine, gestodene), by nifedipine as competitive inhibitor (Ki = 129 microM) and by ketoconazole 0.6 microM (25% residual activity), all these inhibitors specific to P450 3A. Among 10 heterologously expressed P450s tested, only P450 3A4 was able to dealkylate buprenorphine with a turnover number of 9.6 min(-1). Morever, this catalytic activity was inhibited up to 80% (vs control) by anti-rat P450 3A antibody. Taken together, all these data demonstrate that P450 3A4 is the major enzyme involved in hepatic buprenorphine N-dealkylation.

Management of chronic pain. Part I

Chronic pain is associated with substantial psychosocial and economic stress, coupled with functional loss and various levels of vocational dysfunction. The role of a pain center is to focus on chronic pain in a multidisciplinary, comprehensive manner, providing the patient with the most effective opportunity to manage his or her chronic disease syndrome. This article focuses on methods to manage many types of chronic pain and describes a broad range of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions and options available to the patient. Part I of this two-part monograph describes pharmacotherapeutic interventions and regional nerve blocks. Part II focuses on psychologic assessment and treatment and physical therapy. A multimodal management strategy offers patients the greatest improvement potential for specific chronic pain syndromes. Cognitive and behavioral therapies and physical therapies are described. This combination of therapies may provide patients with the skills and knowledge needed to increase their sense of control over pain. The integration of appropriate pharmacotherapeutic regimens, neural blockades, physical therapy, and psychologic techniques maximizes a patient's effectiveness in dealing with chronic pain. Three case studies are presented in Part II.

[Comparative study of buprenorphine and its combination to ketoprofen or propacetamol for postoperative analgesia in urologic surgery]

OBJECTIVE

To compare the analgesic effect of subcutaneous buprenorphine alone and in combination with propacetamol and ketoprofen following urologic surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Open randomized clinical trial.

PATIENTS

Sixty ASA II/III patients undergoing urologic surgery.

METHODS

The patients were randomized into three groups to receive either buprenorphine (0.3 mg subcutaneous) on demand (group 1, n = 20), or a combination of buprenorphine (0.3 mg)-propacetamol (2 g)-ketoprofen (100 mg) by intravenous route over 2 hours followed by an infusion of propacetamol (2 g) and ketoprofen (100 mg) at a constant rate over. The remaining 22 hours (group 2, n = 20), or the same loading dose as in group 2 prolonged by a continuous infusion of buprenorphine (0.3 mg), propacetamol (2 g) and ketoprofen (100 mg) over the same period (group 3, n = 20). Visual analogue scale pain scores (0-10) were assessed every hour during the 24 hours of the study. When the VAS score exceeded 5, an additional dose of 0.3 mg of buprenorphine was administered.

RESULTS

Groups were similar for age, surgery, anaesthesia and initial pain levels. Compared to group 1, the onset of analgesia was earlier in groups 2 and 3 at the 1st hour (P < 0.05); the level of analgesia was lower at the 3rd hour (P < 0.05). The maintenance of this analgesia level required constant buprenorphine administration. Buprenorphine requirements were decreased to 56% and 37% in groups 2 and 3 respectively, compared to group 1 (P < 0.05). Incidence of nausea and vomiting was lowered to 15% in group 3 (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

A combination of buprenorphine, propacetamol and ketoprofen provides effective postoperative analgesia with a low incidence of nausea and vomiting and decreased requirements of buprenorphine.

Premedication with sublingual buprenorphine for out-patient arthroscopy: reduced need for postoperative pethidine but higher incidence of nausea

The effect of preoperative sublingual buprenorphine (B) on postoperative pain (VAS), the need for postoperative opioid injections and on time to discharge, was evaluated in a prospective randomised double-blind study. Forty ASA I-II patients scheduled for arthroscopy of the knee received premedication with 0.4 mg buprenorphine (group B) and 42 patients were given placebo (group P). Postoperatively, pethidine was given to patients with pain. Three of the 40 patients in group B vs 11 of the 42 in group P received pethidine (P < 0.05). In group B, however, 13 of the 40 patients complained of nausea, prolonging median time to discharge from 155 to 255 minutes (P < 0.05). In group P, 3 of the 42 patients were nauseated, P < 0.01, compared with group B. Time to discharge did not differ between the groups in patients without nausea. The median respiratory rate was significantly lower in group B, but no patient required ventilatory support. In conclusion, premedication with sublingual buprenorphine cannot be recommended for this procedure. It reduces the need for postoperative injections of pethidine but increases the incidence of postoperative nausea which prolongs the recovery time. Careful monitoring is also mandatory because of the possibility of respiratory depression.

[Continuous subcutaneous buprenorphine application in the treatment of cancer pain.]

Introduction Buprenorphine is well known in cancer pain therapy because of the long duration of its action and high analgesic potency. Many studies exist about the intravenous and sublingual application form; however, few data are available on its use by the continuous subcutaneous route. Methods Twenty-five patients were analysed retrospectively over 956 days who has been treated with continuous subcutaneous buprenorphine for cancer-related pain. In 7 of these 25 patients plasma analyses were performed. Due to a modified sensitive HPLC method with electrochemical detection for the analysis of buprenorphine in plasma, a detection limit of 40 pg/ml could be obtained. The other analytical methods for plasma concentration have detection limits between 150 and 500 pg/ml. Results During the treatment with continuous subcutaneous buprenorphine it was necessary to increase the initial average daily dose of 1.07 (+/-0.41) mg to 1.58 (+/-0.58) mg. The initially high pain intensity (rated from 0 to 100%) of 67% could be reduced to a moderate pain of 26% on average. Only 2 patients had to be switched over to morphine because of insufficient analgesia. In no case did complications occur that required intervention or would have made it necessary to change the pain therapy. Eighty percent of the patients judged this kind of treatment as effective and comfortable. Most often patients complained about drowsiness, low appetite and constipation. Because of the progress of the cancer disease these effects could not clearly be related to treatment side effects. With 7 of 25 patients the median daily dose of 1.2 (minimum 0.9-maximum 2.3) mg buprenorphine was related to the median plasma concentration of 438 (minimum 64-maximum 3374) pg/ml. In one case with progressive liver dysfunction, the potential risk of cumulation with buprenorphine could be controlled with this method. Conclusions Continuous subcutaneous buprenorphine with external infusors is a safe and efficient cancer pain therapy without severe side effects. Because of its ceiling effect, it is not as effective as morphine, but can be discussed as an alternative if other opioids cause incompatibility reactions.

Column-switching solid-phase trace-enrichment high-performance liquid chromatographic method for measurement of buprenorphine and norbuprenorphine in human plasma and urine by electrochemical detection

We describe a new high-performance liquid chromatographic method using electrochemical detection for the determination of buprenorphine and norbuprenorphine in plasma and urine. The minimum concentration for detection of buprenorphine and norbuprenorphine is 40 pg/ml. The intra-assay coefficient of variation (C.V.) in plasma and urine samples ranges from 6 to 17% depending on the drug concentration. At a plasma concentration of 500 pg/ml the inter-assay C.V. is 8% for buprenorphine and 9% for norbuprenorphine. The analysis duration is 16 min. After solid-phase extraction and evaporation a valve-switching system with two Rheodyne valves enables sample enrichment, optimal sample cleaning and rapid elution of long-retained substances.

High-performance liquid chromatography with electrochemical detection of buprenorphine and its major metabolite in urine

A procedure was developed for the simultaneous determination of buprenorphine and its major metabolite. N-desalkylbuprenorphine, by reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography with electrochemical detection. The detection limit is about 100 pg/ml for the major metabolite and 250 pg/ml for buprenorphine.

Opioid agonist-antagonist drugs in acute and chronic pain states

The agonist-antagonist opioid analgesics are a heterogeneous group of drugs with moderate to strong analgesic activity comparable to that of the pure agonist opioids such as codeine and morphine but with a limited effective dose range. The group includes drugs which act as an agonist or partial agonist at one receptor and an antagonist at another (pentazocine, butorphanol, nalbuphine, dezocine) and drugs acting as a partial agonist at a single receptor (buprenorphine). These drugs can be classified as nalorphine-like or morphine-like. Meptazinol does not fit into either classification and occupies a separate category. Pentazocine, butorphanol and nalbuphine are weak mu-antagonists and kappa-partial-agonists. All three drugs are strong analgesics when given by injection: pentazocine is one-sixth to one-third as potent as morphine, nalbuphine is slightly less potent than morphine, and butorphanol is 3.5 to 7 times as potent. The duration of analgesia is similar to that of morphine (3 to 4 hours). Oral pentazocine is closer in analgesic efficacy to aspirin and paracetamol (acetaminophen) than the weak opioid analgesics such as codeine. Neither nalbuphine nor butorphanol is available as an oral formulation. At usual therapeutic doses nalbuphine and butorphanol have respiratory depressant effects equivalent to that of morphine (though the duration of such effects with butorphanol may be longer). Unlike morphine there appears to be a ceiling to both the respiratory depression and the analgesic action. All of these 3 drugs have a lower abuse potential than the pure agonist opioid analgesics such as morphine. However, all have been subject to abuse and misuse, and pentazocine (but not the others) is subject to Controlled Drug restrictions. Buprenorphine is a potent partial agonist at the mu-receptor, and by intramuscular injection is 30 times as potent as morphine. A ceiling to the analgesic effect of buprenorphine has been demonstrated in animals and it is also claimed in humans. However, there are no reliable data available to define the maximal dose of buprenorphine in humans. A practical ceiling exists for sublingual use in that the only available formulation is a 2 micrograms tablet and few patients will accept more than 3 or 4 of these in a single dose. The duration of analgesia is longer than that of morphine, at 6 to 9 hours. There have been suggestions that buprenorphine causes less respiratory depression than morphine, but viewed overall it appears that in equianalgesic doses the 2 drugs have similar respiratory depressant effects.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Naltrexone. A review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic efficacy in the management of opioid dependence

Naltrexone is a long acting competitive antagonist at opioid receptors which blocks the subjective and objective responses produced by intravenous opioid challenge. It is suitable for oral administration, and has been studied as an adjunct for use in opioid addiction management programmes. In non-comparative clinical trials involving detoxified patients, oral naltrexone reduced heroin craving and between 23 and 62% of patients remained in treatment after 3 to 4 weeks. However, in two studies 32 to 58% of patients who continued in treatment were opioid-free between 6 and 12 months after stopping naltrexone. As might be expected studies involving highly motivated patients have shown this type of patient group to achieve greater treatment success rates during naltrexone therapy, and remain opioid-free longer than other groups of apparently less motivated patients. In addition, when naltrexone is combined with family support, psychotherapy and counselling, patients are more likely to remain opioid-free. Naltrexone produces a low incidence of side effects, with gastrointestinal effects being the most commonly reported symptoms. Thus, despite the overall high attrition rates from trials, in selected patient groups and in combination with appropriate support mechanisms and psychotherapy, naltrexone represents a useful adjunct for the maintenance of abstinence in the detoxified opioid addict.

The pharmacokinetics of intravenous, intramuscular, and subcutaneous nalbuphine in healthy subjects

The pharmacokinetics of intravenously, intramuscularly, and subcutaneously administered nalbuphine were studied in three parallel groups of 12 healthy volunteers each. The subjects received single doses of 10 mg and 20 mg of nalbuphine separated by a one week washout period. Blood specimens were obtained up to 15 h after dosing for determination of nalbuphine. Mean plasma nalbuphine concentrations 5 min after intravenous administration of 10 or 20 mg were 39 and 73 ng/ml, respectively. The mean maximum plasma concentrations (Cmax) after intramuscular or subcutaneous administration of nalbuphine 10 mg were 29 and 31 ng/ml, respectively. Mean Cmax values after 20 mg doses were 60 and 56 ng/ml. Mean Cmax occurred 30 to 40 min after nalbuphine administration. The mean elimination half-lives of parenterally administered nalbuphine ranged between 2.2 and 2.6 h, regardless of dose given or route administered. The mean absolute bioavailability was 81% and 83% for the 10 and 20 mg intramuscular doses, respectively, and 79% and 76% following 10 and 20 mg of subcutaneous nalbuphine. The mean volumes of distribution (Vss) of the intravenously administered drug were 290 and 274 l and the mean systemic clearances were 1.6 and 1.5 l/min following administration of 10 and 20 mg doses, respectively. Intramuscular and subcutaneous nalbuphine appear to be interchangeable based on the similarities in Cmax, mean times until maximum concentration, mean AUC data, and absolute bioavailabilities.