Premium
Disopyramide serum and pharmacologic effect kinetics applied to the assessment of bioavailability.
Author(s) -
Bryson SM,
Whiting B,
Lawrence JR
Publication year - 1978
Publication title -
british journal of clinical pharmacology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.216
H-Index - 146
eISSN - 1365-2125
pISSN - 0306-5251
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2125.1978.tb04605.x
Subject(s) - disopyramide , pharmacokinetics , bioavailability , volume of distribution , urine , pharmacology , absorption (acoustics) , oral administration , chemistry , distribution (mathematics) , medicine , mathematical analysis , physics , mathematics , acoustics
1 Serum, urine and pharmacologic effect (prolongation of the QT interval) kinetics of the antiarrhythmic disopyramide have been investigated in eight volunteers after intravenous administration (2 mg/kg) and oral administration (300 mg) of the two commercially available preparations, Rythmodan (Roussel Laboratories) and Norpace (Searle Laboratories). 2 An open one compartment body model adequately described the kinetics of disopyramide in serum and urine. 3 After intravenous administration, the following average pharmacokinetic parameters were found: biological half‐life, 7.8 h; total clearance, 95 ml/min; renal clearance, 54 ml/min; apparent volume of distribution, 60 litres. 4 After oral Rythmodan and Norpace, serum concentration profiles and urinary excretion data revealed significant differences in rates of absorption, times required to achieve peak serum concentrations and biological half‐lives. These differences were largely due to the relatively slow absorption characteristics of Norpace. 5 The absence of hysteresis in plots of QT prolongation against disopyramide serum concentration after oral administration indicated that serum and pharmacologic effect kinetics were indistinguishable within a kinetically equivalent compartment. 6 Analysis of both serum and urine data showed that while Norpace had a significantly higher degree of bioavailability (P less than 0.005), the 5–15% difference between the two formulations should not normally be of any clinical significance.