Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34842366›Full record

ArticleCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2022

Pharmacokinetic modeling of morphine and its glucuronides: Comparison of nebulization versus intravenous route in healthy volunteers.

Thomas Duflot, Tony Pereira, Marie-Pierre Tavolacci, Robinson Joannidès, Frédéric Aubrun, Fabien Lamoureux, Virginie Eve Lvovschi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Thomas DuflotNormandie Univ, UNIROUEN, INSERM U1096, CHU Rouen, Department of Pharmacology, Rouen, France.ORCID 0000-0002-8730-284X
Tony PereiraCHU Rouen, Department of Pharmacology, Rouen, France.
Marie-Pierre TavolacciUNIROUEN, INSERM U1073, Normandie Univ, CHU Rouen, Rouen, France.
Robinson JoannidèsNormandie Univ, UNIROUEN, INSERM U1096, CHU Rouen, Department of Pharmacology, Rouen, France.
Frédéric AubrunDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Croix Rousse Hospital, Claude Bernard University Lyon 1, Lyon, France.
Fabien LamoureuxNormandie Univ, UNIROUEN, INSERM U1096, CHU Rouen, Laboratory of Pharmacology - Toxicology and Pharmacogenetics, Rouen, France.
Virginie Eve LvovschiEmergency Department, UNIROUEN, INSERM U1073, Normandie Univ, CHU Rouen, Rouen, France.ORCID 0000-0003-2903-1911
Inserm · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Rouen · FRUniversité Claude Bernard Lyon 1 · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intravenous (i.v.) morphine is a safe, robust, and recommended treatment for severe pain using the titration principle. Despite its high efficacy, it is impacted by organizational constraints related to venous access. Nebulized (NEB) morphine may represent an alternative for titration but pharmacokinetic (PK) properties of short nebulization using routine devices need evaluation. Twenty-seven healthy volunteers were included to receive NEB or i.v. morphine administration using increasing amounts according to Dixon's reference method. Plasma morphine, morphine-3-glucuronide (M3G), and morphine-6-glucuronide (M6G) were quantified. PK modeling and simulations were performed using Monolix. Dixon's method exhibited a significantly higher morphine dose regimen in the NEB group versus the i.v. group (6.2 [5.3-7.1] vs. 3.0 [2.0-4.0] mg, p < 0.001). Morphine, M3G, and M6G dose-normalized exposure were significantly lower in the NEB group versus the i.v. group: morphine (19 [13-23] vs. 1044 [702-1266] µg min/L, p < 0.001), M3G (245 [162-287] vs. 3752 [2487-5165] µg min/L, p < 0.001) and M6G (28 [21-43] vs. 466 [370-723] µg min/L, p < 0.001). The model that best fitted the data consisted in a transit compartment for morphine absorption, three compartments for morphine distribution followed by multiple transit compartments (8.2 and 57.5-min transit time for M3G and M6G, respectively) and a first order elimination for M3G and M6G. Morphine bioavailability in the NEB group was 3.5% using the i.v. group as reference. Administration route and sex significantly influenced morphine and metabolite PKs. This work aimed to evaluate the PKs of NEB morphine compared with the i.v. route. Despite a bioavailability to improve, NEB morphine administration using a routine device is suitable to plan morphine titration.

Indexed as

Administration, InhalationAdultAnalgesics, OpioidComputer SimulationDose-Response Relationship, DrugFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansInjections, IntravenousMaleMiddle AgedModels, BiologicalMorphineMorphine DerivativesNebulizers and VaporizersSex FactorsAnalgesics, OpioidMorphinemorphine-3-glucuronidemorphine-6-glucuronideMorphine Derivatives

Identifiers

PMID34842366
PMCPMC8752103
OpenAlexW3216789331

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.