Cargando…

Pharmacokinetics of vaginal versus buccal misoprostol for labor induction at term

The IMPROVE study (NCT02408315) compared the efficacy and safety of vaginal and buccal administration of misoprostol for full‐term, uncomplicated labor induction. This report compares the pharmacokinetics of misoprostol between vaginal and buccal routes. Women greater than or equal to 14 years of ag...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vorontsova, Yana, Haas, David M., Flannery, Kathleen, Masters, Andrea R., Silva, Larissa L., Pierson, Rebecca C., Yeley, Brittany, Hogg, Graham, Guise, David, Heathman, Michael, Quinney, Sara K.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9372425/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35587540
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cts.13306
_version_ 1784767379485491200
author Vorontsova, Yana
Haas, David M.
Flannery, Kathleen
Masters, Andrea R.
Silva, Larissa L.
Pierson, Rebecca C.
Yeley, Brittany
Hogg, Graham
Guise, David
Heathman, Michael
Quinney, Sara K.
author_facet Vorontsova, Yana
Haas, David M.
Flannery, Kathleen
Masters, Andrea R.
Silva, Larissa L.
Pierson, Rebecca C.
Yeley, Brittany
Hogg, Graham
Guise, David
Heathman, Michael
Quinney, Sara K.
author_sort Vorontsova, Yana
collection PubMed
description The IMPROVE study (NCT02408315) compared the efficacy and safety of vaginal and buccal administration of misoprostol for full‐term, uncomplicated labor induction. This report compares the pharmacokinetics of misoprostol between vaginal and buccal routes. Women greater than or equal to 14 years of age undergoing induction of labor greater than or equal to 37 weeks gestation without significant complications were randomized to vaginal or buccal misoprostol 25 μg followed by 50 μg doses every 4 h. Misoprostol acid concentrations were determined using liquid chromatography‐tandem mass spectrometry for the first 8 h in a subgroup of participants. A population pharmacokinetic model was developed using NONMEM. Plasma concentrations (n = 469) from 47 women were fit to a one‐compartment nonlinear clearance model. The absorption rate constant (k(a)) was dependent on both route and dose of administration: buccal 25 μg 0.724 (95% confidence interval, 0.54–0.92) h(−1); 50 μg 0.531 (0.37–0.63) h(−1); vaginal 25 μg 0.507 (0. 2–1. 4) h(−1); and 50 μg 0.246 (0.103–0.453) h(−1). Relative bioavailability for vaginal compared to buccal route was 2.4 (1.63–4.77). There was no effect of body mass index or age on apparent clearance 705 (431–1099) L/h or apparent volume of distribution 632 (343–1008) L. The area under the concentration–time curve to 4 h following the first 25 μg dose of misoprostol was 16.5 (15.4–17.5) pg h/ml for buccal and 34.3 (32.5–36.1) pg h/ml for vaginal administration. The rate of buccal absorption was two times faster than that of vaginal, whereas bioavailability of vaginal administration was 2.4 times higher than that of buccal. Decreased time to delivery observed with vaginal dosing may be due to higher exposure to misoprostol acid compared to buccal.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9372425
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93724252022-08-16 Pharmacokinetics of vaginal versus buccal misoprostol for labor induction at term Vorontsova, Yana Haas, David M. Flannery, Kathleen Masters, Andrea R. Silva, Larissa L. Pierson, Rebecca C. Yeley, Brittany Hogg, Graham Guise, David Heathman, Michael Quinney, Sara K. Clin Transl Sci Research The IMPROVE study (NCT02408315) compared the efficacy and safety of vaginal and buccal administration of misoprostol for full‐term, uncomplicated labor induction. This report compares the pharmacokinetics of misoprostol between vaginal and buccal routes. Women greater than or equal to 14 years of age undergoing induction of labor greater than or equal to 37 weeks gestation without significant complications were randomized to vaginal or buccal misoprostol 25 μg followed by 50 μg doses every 4 h. Misoprostol acid concentrations were determined using liquid chromatography‐tandem mass spectrometry for the first 8 h in a subgroup of participants. A population pharmacokinetic model was developed using NONMEM. Plasma concentrations (n = 469) from 47 women were fit to a one‐compartment nonlinear clearance model. The absorption rate constant (k(a)) was dependent on both route and dose of administration: buccal 25 μg 0.724 (95% confidence interval, 0.54–0.92) h(−1); 50 μg 0.531 (0.37–0.63) h(−1); vaginal 25 μg 0.507 (0. 2–1. 4) h(−1); and 50 μg 0.246 (0.103–0.453) h(−1). Relative bioavailability for vaginal compared to buccal route was 2.4 (1.63–4.77). There was no effect of body mass index or age on apparent clearance 705 (431–1099) L/h or apparent volume of distribution 632 (343–1008) L. The area under the concentration–time curve to 4 h following the first 25 μg dose of misoprostol was 16.5 (15.4–17.5) pg h/ml for buccal and 34.3 (32.5–36.1) pg h/ml for vaginal administration. The rate of buccal absorption was two times faster than that of vaginal, whereas bioavailability of vaginal administration was 2.4 times higher than that of buccal. Decreased time to delivery observed with vaginal dosing may be due to higher exposure to misoprostol acid compared to buccal. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-06-12 2022-08 /pmc/articles/PMC9372425/ /pubmed/35587540 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cts.13306 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Clinical and Translational Science published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Research
Vorontsova, Yana
Haas, David M.
Flannery, Kathleen
Masters, Andrea R.
Silva, Larissa L.
Pierson, Rebecca C.
Yeley, Brittany
Hogg, Graham
Guise, David
Heathman, Michael
Quinney, Sara K.
Pharmacokinetics of vaginal versus buccal misoprostol for labor induction at term
title Pharmacokinetics of vaginal versus buccal misoprostol for labor induction at term
title_full Pharmacokinetics of vaginal versus buccal misoprostol for labor induction at term
title_fullStr Pharmacokinetics of vaginal versus buccal misoprostol for labor induction at term
title_full_unstemmed Pharmacokinetics of vaginal versus buccal misoprostol for labor induction at term
title_short Pharmacokinetics of vaginal versus buccal misoprostol for labor induction at term
title_sort pharmacokinetics of vaginal versus buccal misoprostol for labor induction at term
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9372425/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35587540
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cts.13306
work_keys_str_mv AT vorontsovayana pharmacokineticsofvaginalversusbuccalmisoprostolforlaborinductionatterm
AT haasdavidm pharmacokineticsofvaginalversusbuccalmisoprostolforlaborinductionatterm
AT flannerykathleen pharmacokineticsofvaginalversusbuccalmisoprostolforlaborinductionatterm
AT mastersandrear pharmacokineticsofvaginalversusbuccalmisoprostolforlaborinductionatterm
AT silvalarissal pharmacokineticsofvaginalversusbuccalmisoprostolforlaborinductionatterm
AT piersonrebeccac pharmacokineticsofvaginalversusbuccalmisoprostolforlaborinductionatterm
AT yeleybrittany pharmacokineticsofvaginalversusbuccalmisoprostolforlaborinductionatterm
AT hogggraham pharmacokineticsofvaginalversusbuccalmisoprostolforlaborinductionatterm
AT guisedavid pharmacokineticsofvaginalversusbuccalmisoprostolforlaborinductionatterm
AT heathmanmichael pharmacokineticsofvaginalversusbuccalmisoprostolforlaborinductionatterm
AT quinneysarak pharmacokineticsofvaginalversusbuccalmisoprostolforlaborinductionatterm