Premium
Multiple‐Dose Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of OROS and Immediate‐Release Amitriptyline Hydrochloride Formulations
Author(s) -
Gupta Suneel K.,
Shah Jaymin,
Guinta Diane,
Hwang Stephen
Publication year - 1998
Publication title -
the journal of clinical pharmacology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.92
H-Index - 116
eISSN - 1552-4604
pISSN - 0091-2700
DOI - 10.1002/j.1552-4604.1998.tb04378.x
Subject(s) - amitriptyline , anticholinergic , pharmacokinetics , nortriptyline , pharmacodynamics , anesthesia , medicine , pharmacology , metabolite , oral administration , area under the curve
The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of amitriptyline hydrochloride after oral administration of an OROS osmotic system, which provides controlled drug delivery, and an immediate‐release (IR) tablet, were evaluated in 24 healthy volunteers after repeated administration for 14 days. Each morning, subjects received either 75 mg of the OROS (amitriptyline HCl) controlled‐release formulation or the 75 mg IR amitriptyline tablet for 14 days on two separate occasions with a washout period of 21 days according to a randomly assigned sequence. Serial blood samples were collected for a period of 58 hours after the day 14 dose, then these samples were analyzed by the gas chromatography method for amitriptyline and nortriptyline. Subjective ratings of dry mouth and drowsiness were collected at specific times throughout each treatment period. Administration of the OROS formulation resulted in much more consistent plasma concentrations of the drug and metabolite compared with the IR formulation at steady state. The mean maximum concentration (C max ) of amitriptyline was significantly lower after administration of OROS than the IR formulation. Mean values for area under the concentration—time curve (AUC 0–24 ) for the OROS and IR formulations were 1,265 and 1,393 ng·hr/mL, respectively. The drug‐to‐metabolite ratio was found to be similar for both treatments, suggesting that there was no difference in metabolism between treatments. Incidence and severity of the anticholinergic effects were similar for the two treatments. A clockwise hysteresis between baseline‐corrected drowsiness and drug concentration suggests development of tolerance of the anticholinergic effects after both treatments. Using a hypothetical anatagonist metabolite model to explain tolerance development, the shape of the hysteresis curves of the two treatments could be explained by differences in dosing frequency.