Why the study?
Does the method of intravenous administration (bolus vs constant infusion) affect the calculated bioavailability of oral nicardipine in a healthy subject?
Does the method of intravenous administration (bolus vs constant infusion) affect the calculated bioavailability of oral nicardipine in a healthy subject?
Constant rate intravenous infusion is necessary to accurately detect the gamma-phase and calculate the absolute bioavailability of nicardipine.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
IV bolus underestimates nicardipine bioavailability 2-fold versus infusion; leaves optimal PK method open for research standardization.
The pharmacokinetic study of nicardipine in the same human after intravenous and oral adminstration was examined. The profile of nicardipine after bolus 1.05 mg injection fit well to a bi-exponential curve. Plasma nicardipine concentrations for constant rate infusion at 1.27 mg/hr for 3 hr declined from 3 to 7 hr with the same pattern as the bolus injection, but exhibited another slope after 7 hr that declined more gently. The γvalue was 0.0463 hr-1, 1/5 the β-values. On the other hand, absolute bioavailability values for Perdipine LA® sustained-release capsule containing 40 mg nicardipine as hydrochloride salt after single and multiple doses were calculated by dividing AUCPO by AUCIV, correcting for administered dose. Bioavailability values calculated based on the bolus injection (about 20%) represented a 2-fold difference when compared to values derived from constant rate infusion data. Consequently, differences in bioavailability values must be considered carefully to calculate bioavailability accurately. When the γ-phase is detected as in the case of nicardipine disposition, we need to select the intravenous administration for detecting γ-phase.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hirota et al. (1998) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: