Prolongación del tiempo QT
Eventos adversos de medicamentos
Variantes ✨Para la evaluación computacionalmente intensiva de las variantes, elija la suscripción estándar paga.
Explicaciones de las sustancias para pacientes.
No existen advertencias adicionales para la combinación de buprenorfina y abarelix. Consulte también la información especializada pertinente.
Los cambios informados en la exposición corresponden a los cambios en la curva de concentración plasmática-tiempo [ AUC ]. No esperamos ningún cambio en la exposición a buprenorfina, cuando se combina con abarelix (100%). No esperamos ningún cambio en la exposición a abarelix, cuando se combina con buprenorfina (100%).
Los parámetros farmacocinéticos de la población media se utilizan como punto de partida para calcular los cambios individuales en la exposición debidos a las interacciones.
La buprenorfina tiene una baja biodisponibilidad oral [ F ] del 100 %, por lo que el nivel plasmático máximo [Cmax] tiende a cambiar fuertemente con una interacción. La vida media terminal [ t12 ] es relativamente corta a las 3.2 horas y los niveles plasmáticos constantes [ Css ] se alcanzan rápidamente. La unión a proteínas [ Pb ] es 100 % fuerte y el volumen de distribución [ Vd ] es muy grande a 335 litros, El metabolismo tiene lugar principalmente a través de CYP3A4.
Se desconoce la biodisponibilidad de la abarelix. La vida media terminal [ t12 ] es relativamente extensa a las 316.8 horas y los niveles plasmáticos constantes [ Css ] sólo se alcanzan después de más de 1267.2 horas. La unión a proteínas [ Pb ] es 100 % fuerte. Actualmente, se sigue trabajando en el metabolismo por citocromos.
|Efectos serotoninérgicos a||1||+||Ø|
Recomendación: Como medida de precaución, se deben tener en cuenta los síntomas de sobreestimulación serotoninérgica, especialmente después de aumentar la dosis y en dosis en el rango terapéutico superior.
Clasificación: La buprenorfina tiene un efecto leve sobre el sistema serotoninérgico. El riesgo de síndrome serotoninérgico se puede clasificar como bajo con este medicamento si la dosis se encuentra en el rango habitual. Según nuestro conocimiento, la abarelix no aumenta la actividad serotoninérgica.
|Kiesel & Durán b||0||Ø||Ø|
Clasificación: Según nuestro conocimiento, ni la buprenorfina ni la abarelix aumentan la actividad anticolinérgica.
Prolongación del tiempo QT
Clasificación: En combinación, la buprenorfina y la abarelix pueden desencadenar potencialmente arritmias ventriculares del tipo torsades de pointes.
Efectos adversos generales
|Efectos secundarios||∑ frecuencia||bup||aba|
|Dolor de cabeza||8.5 %||8.5||n.a.|
|Dolor de espalda||6.0 %||6.0||n.a.|
Sedación (3.4%): buprenorfina
Accidente cerebrovascular: buprenorfina
Obstrucción intestinal: buprenorfina
Infeccion de las vias respiratorias altas: buprenorfina
Depresion respiratoria: buprenorfina
Insuficiencia respiratoria: buprenorfina
Insuficiencia suprarrenal: buprenorfina
Encefalopatía hepática: buprenorfina
Síndrome hepatorrenal: buprenorfina
Insuficiencia hepática: buprenorfina
Reacción de hipersensibilidad: buprenorfina
Con base en sus respuestas e información científica, evaluamos el riesgo individual de efectos secundarios adversos. Estas recomendaciones están destinadas a asesorar a los profesionales y no sustituyen la consulta con un médico. En la versión de prueba restringida (alfa), el riesgo de todas las sustancias aún no se ha evaluado de manera concluyente.
Abstract: The disposition of buprenorphine has been studied in two patient groups to assess the influence of impaired renal function on the metabolism of buprenorphine and two of its metabolites, buprenorphine-3-glucuronide (B3G) and norbuprenorphine (NorB). A single i.v. dose of 0.3 mg was given to 15 patients (nine with dialysis-dependent renal failure) undergoing lower abdominal or peripheral body surface surgery. Blood was sampled up to 24 h. Concentrations of buprenorphine, B3G and NorB were assayed by a differential radioimmunoassay technique. There were no differences in buprenorphine kinetics between anaesthetized healthy patients and those with renal impairment: mean elimination half-lives 398 and 239 min; clearance 651 and 988 ml min-1; apparent volume of distribution at steady state 313 and 201 litre, respectively. Both metabolites were undetectable following the single i.v. dose. In a second group of 20 patients (eight with renal impairment), buprenorphine was administered by continuous infusion for provision of analgesia and control of ventilation in the ITU (median infusion rate 161 micrograms h-1 (range 36-230 micrograms h-1) for a median duration of 30 h (2-565 h). Buprenorphine clearance in patients with normal and impaired renal function was similar (934 and 1102 ml min-1, respectively), as were dose-corrected plasma concentrations of buprenorphine. In patients with renal failure, plasma concentrations of NorB were increased by a median of four times, and B3G concentrations by a median of 15 times.
Abstract: The kinetics and systemic bioavailability of intranasally administered buprenorphine have been investigated in 9 healthy volunteers in an intranasal/intravenous cross-over study. Each subject received a nominal 0.3 mg dose of buprenorphine intranasally followed one week later by a matched dose intravenously. For the intranasal administration mean tmax and mean Cmax were 30.6 min and 1.77 ng mL-1, respectively. Mean intranasal bioavailability was 48.2 +/- 8.35% (mean +/- s.e.m.) of the intravenous value. Intranasal administration may represent a valuable new delivery route for buprenorphine.
Abstract: Buprenorphine administered sublingually is a promising treatment for opiate dependence. Utilizing a new, sensitive, and specific gas chromatographic electron-capture detector assay, the absolute bioavailability of sublingual buprenorphine was determined in six healthy volunteers by comparing plasma concentrations after 3- and 5-minute exposures to 2 mg sublingual and 1 mg intravenous buprenorphine. The amount of unabsorbed buprenorphine in saliva was measured after 2-, 4-, and 10-minute exposures to 2 mg sublingual buprenorphine in 12 participants. Pharmacokinetic parameters were analyzed by analysis of variance; bioequivalence was evaluated by the Schuirmann two-sided test. The 3- and 5-minute sublingual exposures each allowed 29 +/- 10% bioavailability (area under the plasma concentration-time curve unextrapolated) and were bioequivalent. Buprenorphine recovered from saliva after 2-, 4-, and 10-minute exposures was, on average, 52% to 55% of dose. Increased saliva pH was correlated with decreased recovery from saliva. Study results indicate that bioavailability of sublingual buprenorphine is approximately 30%. Sublingual exposure times between 3 and 5 minutes produce equivalent results. Buprenorphine remaining in saliva causes an almost twofold overestimation of bioavailability.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Cardiac arrhythmias have been linked to treatment with methadone and levacetylmethadol. HIV-positive patients often have conditions that place them at risk for QT interval prolongation including HIV-associated dilated cardiomyopathy, coronary artery disease as a consequence of highly active antiretroviral (ARV) therapy-associated metabolic syndrome, and uncorrected electrolyte abnormalities. As of February 14, 2006, no cases of adverse events related to QT interval prolongation have been reported in patients receiving buprenorphine, an opioid partial agonist and the newest drug approved for the treatment of opioid dependence. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of buprenorphine/naloxone alone and in combination with 1 of 5 ARV agents (efavirenz, nelfinavir, delavirdine, ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir) on the QT interval. METHODS: This study was prospective, open-label, and within-subject in design, with subjects serving as their own controls. In 50 HIV-negative, opioid-dependent subjects, electrocardiogram recordings were obtained at baseline, after receiving buprenorphine/naloxone for 2 weeks, and then following buprenorphine/naloxone plus ARV administration for 5-15 days at steady-state. QTc interval measurements were compared using mixed-model, repeated-measures ANOVA. Recent cocaine use and gender were considered covariates. RESULTS: Buprenorphine/naloxone alone and often in the presence of evidence for recent use of cocaine did not significantly alter the QT interval (p = 0.612). Buprenorphine/naloxone in combination with ARVs caused a statistically, but not clinically, significant increase (p = 0.005) in the QT interval. Subjects receiving buprenorphine/naloxone in combination with either delavirdine or ritonavir had the greatest increase in QTc intervals. CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged QT intervals were not observed in opioid-dependent subjects receiving buprenorphine/naloxone alone. QT interval increases were observed with buprenorphine/naloxone in combination with either delavirdine or ritonavir, which inhibit CYP3A4.
Abstract: Impairment of renal function is common among elderly patients due to an age-related decline in renal excretory function. In addition, many diseases such as hypertension and diabetes mellitus are associated with an accelerated decline in renal function. Renal dysfunction affects the metabolism of compounds and thus has important therapeutic consequences for drug safety. For pain patients who have reduced renal function such as those in palliative care, most opioids used for chronic pain treatment should be administered at reduced dosages, with increased dosage intervals, or not at all because of the risk of accumulation of the parent compound or its metabolites. For instance, for morphine or codeine, active metabolites are formed in the liver and cleared by the kidney and may therefore accumulate in cases of renal dysfunction. In contrast, buprenorphine can be administered at normal doses in patients with renal dysfunction because it is mainly excreted through the liver. In patients undergoing regular haemodialysis treatment, removal of an opioid during dialysis varies between individuals based upon a number of factors including the dialysis technique used. Morphine appears to be difficult to process in haemodialysis patients due to possible 'rebound' of metabolites between dialysis sessions. By contrast, the pharmacokinetics of buprenorphine are unchanged in haemodialysis patients, which means that there is no need for dose-reduction with this drug. Thus, in patients with reduced renal function, chronic renal insufficiency and haemodialysis, buprenorphine appears to be a safe choice when opioid treatment is initiated.
Abstract: AIMS: To determine the prevalence of corrected QT interval (QTc) prolongation among patients in opioid maintenance treatment (OMT) and to investigate mortality potentially attributable to QTc prolongation in the Norwegian OMT programme. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Two hundred OMT patients in Oslo were recruited to the QTc assessment study between October 2006 and August 2007. The Norwegian register of all patients receiving OMT in Norway (January 1997-December 2003) and the national death certificate register were used to assess mortality. Mortality records were examined for the 90 deaths that had occurred among 2382 patients with 6450 total years in OMT. DESIGN AND MEASURES: The QTc interval was assessed by electrocardiography (ECG). All ECGs were examined by the same cardiologist, who was blind to patient history and medication. Mortality was calculated by cross-matching the OMT register and the national death certificate register: deaths that were possibly attributable to QTc prolongation were divided by the number of patient-years in OMT. FINDINGS: In the QTc assessment sample (n = 200), 173 patients (86.5%) received methadone and 27 (13.5%) received buprenorphine. In the methadone group, 4.6% (n = 8) had a QTc above 500 milliseconds; 15% (n = 26) had a QTc interval above 470 milliseconds; and 28.9% (n = 50) had a QTc above 450 milliseconds. All patients receiving buprenorphine (n = 27) had QTc results <450 milliseconds. A positive dose-dependent association was identified between QTc length and dose of methadone, and all patients with a QTc above 500 milliseconds were taking methadone doses of 120 mg or more. OMT patient mortality, where QTc prolongation could not be excluded as the cause of death, was 0.06/100 patient-years. Only one death among 3850 OMT initiations occurred within the first month of treatment. CONCLUSION: Of the methadone patients, 4.6% had QTc intervals above 500 milliseconds. The maximum mortality attributable to QTc prolongation was low: 0.06 per 100 patient-years.
Abstract: Opioid dependence is a significant and growing problem in the United States. For nearly a century, federal regulations have made it illegal for psychiatrists and other physicians to pharmacologically manage this condition in an office-based setting using opioids. The passage of the Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 has made it possible for all physicians to prescribe buprenorphine to patients in such a setting. Buprenorphine, a partial mu-opoid receptor agonist, has unique pharmacologic properties that distinguish it from methadone and other medications used in the treatment of opioid dependence. It has been shown to be as effective as methadone and is generally safe and well-tolerated. It is available in two sublingual formulations: Subutex, which contains only buprenorphine, and Suboxone, which also contains naloxone. Physicians who wish to prescribe either must obtain a special waiver from the federal government and are currently limited to prescribing it for 30 patients at a time.
Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To study the effect of transdermal buprenorphine on QTc prolongation at dose levels of 10, 40, and 80 mcg/h, (BTDS 10, BTDS 40, BTDS 80). METHODS: Two randomized, placebo- and positive-controlled, parallel-group, dose-escalating clinical studies evaluated healthy adult subjects randomized to BTDS, placebo, or moxifloxacin in the first study; and to BTDS only, BTDS plus naltrexone, naltrexone alone at the same dose, placebo, or moxifloxacin in the second study. QT intervals were corrected for heart rate using data from each individual subject (QTcI). RESULTS: In the first study (n = 44), the maximum upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval (CI) for mean placebo-corrected change from baseline in QTcI across 13 time points over 24 h were: 10.0 msec for BTDS 10 (Day 6) and 13.3 msec for BTDS 40 (Day 13); and 17.0 msec (Day 6) and 15.5 msec (Day 13) for moxifloxacin, respectively. Similarly, in the second study (n = 66), the upper bound of the 90% CI for mean placebo-corrected change from baseline for QTcI was under 10 msec at all time points for BTDS 10 (maximum upper bound, 5.63 msec), over 10 msec at 5 time points for BTDS 40 (maximum 11.81 msec) and over 10 msec at all 13 time points for BTDS 80 (maximum, 14.14 msec). Naltrexone administered with BTDS eliminated the QTcI prolongation seen with supratherapeutic BTDS doses (BTDS 40, BTDS 80) administered without naltrexone. CONCLUSIONS: At the therapeutic dose of 10 mcg/h, BTDS has no clinically significant effect on QTc. At supratherapeutic doses of 40 and 80 mcg/h, BTDS treatment produces prolongation of QTcI similar in magnitude to that produced by a 400 mg dose of moxifloxacin. Despite the modest, dose-dependent increase in QTcI noted in these studies, transdermal buprenorphine has not been associated with proarrhythmic effects.
Abstract: AIMS: Opioid dependence is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Buprenorphine (BUP) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat opioid dependence. There is a lack of clear consensus on the appropriate dosing of BUP due to interpatient physiological differences in absorption/disposition, subjective response assessment and other patient comorbidities. The objective of the present study was to build and validate robust physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models for intravenous (IV) and sublingual (SL) BUP as a first step to optimizing BUP pharmacotherapy. METHODS: BUP-PBPK modelling and simulations were performed using SimCyp® by incorporating the physiochemical properties of BUP, establishing intersystem extrapolation factors-based in vitro-in-vivo extrapolation (IVIVE) methods to extrapolate in vitro enzyme activity data, and using tissue-specific plasma partition coefficient estimations. Published data on IV and SL-BUP in opioid-dependent and non-opioid-dependent patients were used to build the models. Fourteen model-naïve BUP-PK datasets were used for inter- and intrastudy validations. RESULTS: The IV and SL-BUP-PBPK models developed were robust in predicting the multicompartment disposition of BUP over a dosing range of 0.3-32 mg. Predicted plasma concentration-time profiles in virtual patients were consistent with reported data across five single-dose IV, five single-dose SL and four multiple dose SL studies. All PK parameter predictions were within 75-137% of the corresponding observed data. The model developed predicted the brain exposure of BUP to be about four times higher than that of BUP in plasma. CONCLUSION: The validated PBPK models will be used in future studies to predict BUP plasma and brain concentrations based on the varying demographic, physiological and pathological characteristics of patients.
Abstract: Pain management in end stage renal disease (ESRD) patients is a complex and challenging task to accomplish, and effective pain and symptom control improves quality of life. Pain is prevalent in more than 50% of hemodialysis patients and up to 75% of these patients are treated ineffectively due to its poor recognition by providers. A good history for PQRST factors and intensity assessment using visual analog scale are the initial steps in the management of pain followed by involvement of palliative care, patient and family counseling, discussion of treatment options, and correction of reversible causes. First line should be conservative management such as exercise, massage, heat/cold therapy, acupuncture, meditation, distraction, music therapy, and cognitive behavioral therapy. Analgesics are introduced according to WHO guidelines (by the mouth, by the clock, by the ladder, for the individual, and attention to detail) using three-step analgesic ladder model. Neuropathic pain can be controlled by gabapentin and pregabalin. Substitution/addition of opioid analgesics are indicated if pain control is not optimal. Commonly used opioids in ESRD patients are tramadol, oxycodone, hydromorphone, fentanyl, methadone, and buprenorphine. Methadone, fentanyl, and buprenorphine are the ideal analgesics in ESRD. However, complex pain syndrome requires multidrug analgesic regimen comprising opioids, non-opioids, and adjuvant medication, which should be individualized to the patient to achieve adequate pain control.