4.3 Article

Enantioselective Pharmacokinetics of (R)- and (S)-Ketamine After a 5-Day Infusion in Patients with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome

期刊

CHIRALITY
卷 23, 期 2, 页码 138-143

出版社

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/chir.20890

关键词

ketamine; norketamine; CRPS; pharmacokinetics; pharmacodynamics; enantioselective; liquid chromatography; mass spectrometry

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging/NIH

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: This study determined the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of (R)- and (S)-ketamine and (R)- and (S)-norketamine following a 5-day moderate dose, as a continuous (R, S)-ketamine infusion in complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) patients. Materials and methods: Ketamine was titrated to 10-40 mg/h and maintained for 5 days. (R)and (S)-Ketamine and (R)- and (S)-norketamine pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies were performed. Blood samples were obtained on Day 1 preinfusion, and at 60-90, 120-150, 180-210, and 240-300 min after the start of the infusion, on Days 2, 3, 4, 5, and on Day 5 at 60 min after the end of infusion. The plasma concentrations of (R)- and (S)-ketamine and (R)- and (S)-norketamine were determined using enantioselective liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. Results: Ketamine and norketamine levels stabilized 5 h after the start of the infusion. (R)-Ketamine clearance was significantly lower resulting in higher steady-state plasma concentrations than (S)-ketamine. The first-order elimination for (S)-norketamine was significantly greater than that of (R)-enantiomer. When comparing the pharmacokinetic parameters of the patients who responded to ketamine treatment with those who did not, no differences were observed in ketamine clearance and the first-order elimination of norketamine. Conclusion: The results indicate that (R)- and (S)-ketamine and (R)- and (S)-norketamine plasma concentrations do not explain the antinociceptive activity of the drug in patients suffering from CRPS. Chirality 23:138-143, 2011. (C) 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据