ArticleCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2022
Pharmacokinetic modeling of morphine and its glucuronides: Comparison of nebulization versus intravenous route in healthy volunteers.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Morphine and hydromorphone pharmacokinetics in human volunteers: population-based modelling of interindividual and opioid-related variability.British journal of anaesthesia · 2025Trial
- Article
- SUGGESTIVE PREPARATION OF PATIENTS USING INTRAVENOUS KETOPROFEN AS A PART OF POSTOPERATIVE PAIN MANAGEMENT IN ELECTIVE ABDOMINAL SURGERY.Acta clinica Croatica · 2023Article
- Relevance of cortisol and copeptin blood concentration changes in an experimental pain model.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Pharmacokinetic modeling of morphine and its glucuronides: Comparison of nebulization versus intravenous route in healthy volunteers.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.