AQUAVAN injection, a water-soluble prodrug of propofol, as a bolus injection: a phase I dose-escalation comparison with DIPRIVAN (part 1): pharmacokinetics.

BACKGROUND: AQUAVAN Injection (AQ) (GPI 15715; Guilford Pharmaceutical Inc., Baltimore, MD) is a water-soluble prodrug of propofol (PropofolGPI). This study aimed to explore the pharmacokinetics of AQ, PropofolGPI, and formate (a metabolite of AQ) and to compare them with the pharmacokinetics of propofol lipid emulsion (PropofolD). METHODS: After ethics committee approval, 36 healthy volunteers were randomly allocated into six cohorts (male/female: 3/3) and given a single bolus of AQ (5, 10, 15, 20, 25, or 30 mg/kg). For comparison, an equipotent dose (as measured by the Bispectral Index) of PropofolD was given to the same subjects 1 week later. For both drugs, blood samples were collected (1-480 min) to analyze AQ, PropofolGPI, PropofolD, and formate concentrations. Noncompartmental pharmacokinetic analyses were performed for all analytes. A population compartmental model was developed for AQ and PropofolGPI using NONMEM. The models were evaluated using simulations and bootstraps. RESULTS: The noncompartmental pharmacokinetic comparison revealed different dispositions of PropofolGPI and PropofolD. The maximum plasma concentration was lower for PropofolGPI than for PropofolD at equipotent doses, and apparent clearance and distribution volume were much higher for PropofolGPI than for PropofolD. Formate concentrations were similar when injecting both drugs and were not higher than baseline. Compartmental modeling revealed that the pharmacokinetic behavior of AQ and its liberated PropofolGPI was best described by a nonlinear, six-compartment model, composed of two three-compartment models connected to each other by hydrolysis of AQ to PropofolGPI. CONCLUSIONS: PropofolGPI showed different noncompartmental pharmacokinetics from PropofolD, hereby revealing the influence of the formulation. The combined model for AQ and PropofolGPI was best modeled by a nonlinear, six-compartment model.

AQUAVAN injection, a water-soluble prodrug of propofol, as a bolus injection: a phase I dose-escalation comparison with DIPRIVAN (part 2): pharmacodynamics and safety.

BACKGROUND: AQUAVAN Injection (AQ) (GPI 15715; Guilford Pharmaceuticals Inc., Baltimore, MD) is a water-soluble prodrug of propofol. The authors explored the pharmacodynamics and safety of AQ and compared it with propofol lipid emulsion (PropofolD). METHODS: After institutional review board approval, 36 volunteers with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of I were randomly allocated into six cohorts (male/female: 3/3 per cohort) and given a single bolus of AQ (5, 10, 15, 20, 25, or 30 mg/kg). A Bispectral Index monitor (Aspect Medical Systems Inc., Newton, MA) measured the hypnotic effect. The lowest Bispectral Index level (BISpeak) was recorded. One week later, PropofolD was given to the same subjects at 50 mg/min to reach a similar BISpeak. Heart rate, oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximetry, blood pressure, and side effects were monitored. Incidence and duration of apnea and loss (LOCverbal) and return of response to verbal command were measured. A population compartmental pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model was developed for AQ using NONMEM and evaluated using simulations, leverage, and bootstrap analyses. RESULTS: In the higher dosages (cohorts 4-6), all subjects achieved LOCverbal. Similar times until LOCverbal were seen for AQ and PropofolD. A dose-related increase in duration of LOCverbal was longer for AQ than for PropofolD. AQ BISpeak occurred later than with PropofolD. Pain on injection was only present with PropofolD (12 of 36). With AQ, transient paresthesias and pruritus were seen. Hemodynamic profiles were similar for both drugs, except for an initial tachycardia after AQ administration. Dose-dependent apnea was more pronounced with PropofolD than with AQ. The AQ combined pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic profile was best described by a nonlinear, six-compartment pharmacokinetic model and an effect site compartment. A dependency of the ke0 value on the PropofolGPI plasma concentration was noted. CONCLUSION: Bolus administration of AQ achieves LOCverbal at a similar time as an equipotent amount of PropofolD but shows a longer time to BISpeak and prolonged pharmacodynamics. For both drugs, excellent drug safety was achieved, although there was a tendency of fewer and shorter duration of apneas for AQ.

Spectral entropy as an electroencephalographic measure of anesthetic drug effect: a comparison with bispectral index and processed midlatency auditory evoked response.

BACKGROUND: The authors compared the behavior of two calculations of electroencephalographic spectral entropy, state entropy (SE) and response entropy (RE), with the A-Line ARX Index (AAI) and the Bispectral Index (BIS) and as measures of anesthetic drug effect. They compared the measures for baseline variability, burst suppression, and prediction probability. They also developed pharmacodynamic models relating SE, RE, AAI, and BIS to the calculated propofol effect-site concentration (Ceprop). METHODS: With institutional review board approval, the authors studied 10 patients. All patients received 50 mg/min propofol until either burst suppression greater than 80% or mean arterial pressure less than 50 mmHg was observed. SE, RE, AAI, and BIS were continuously recorded. Ceprop was calculated from the propofol infusion profile. Baseline variability, prediction of burst suppression, prediction probability, and Spearman rank correlation were calculated for SE, RE, AAI, and BIS. The relations between Ceprop and the electroencephalographic measures of drug effect were estimated using nonlinear mixed effect modeling. RESULTS: Baseline variability was lowest when using SE and RE. Burst suppression was most accurately detected by spectral entropy. Prediction probability and individualized Spearman rank correlation were highest for BIS and lowest for SE. Nonlinear mixed effect modeling generated reasonable models relating all four measures to Ceprop. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with BIS and AAI, both SE and RE seem to be useful electroencephalographic measures of anesthetic drug effect, with low baseline variability and accurate burst suppression prediction. The ability of the measures to predict Ceprop was best for BIS.