» Articles » PMID: 19189088

The Bioavailability of Bromazepam, Omeprazole and Paracetamol Given by Nasogastric Feeding Tube

Overview
Specialty Pharmacology
Date 2009 Feb 4
PMID 19189088
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Aims: To characterize and compare the pharmacokinetic profiles of bromazepam, omeprazole and paracetamol when administered by the oral and nasogastric routes to the same healthy cohort of volunteers.

Methods: In a prospective, monocentric, randomized crossover study, eight healthy volunteers received the three drugs by the oral (OR) and nasogastric routes (NT). Sequential plasma samples were analyzed by high-performance liquid chromatography-UV, pharmacokinetic parameters (Cmax, AUC(0-infinity), t(1/2), k(e), tmax) were compared statistically, and Cmax, AUC(0-infinity) and t(max) were analyzed for bioequivalence.

Results: A statistically significant difference was seen in the AUC(0-infinity) of bromazepam, with nasogastric administration decreasing availability by about 25%: AUC(OR) = 2501 ng mL(-1) h; AUC(NT) = 1855 ng mL(-1) h (p < 0.05); ratio (geometric mean) = 0.74 [90% confidence interval (CI) 0.64-0.87]. However, this does not appear to be clinically relevant given the usual dosage range and the drug's half-life (approx. 30 h). A large interindividual variability in omeprazole parameters prevented any statistical conclusion from being drawn in terms of both modes of administration despite their similar average profile: AUC(OR) = 579 ng mL(-1) h; AUC(NT) = 587 ng mL(-1) h (p > 0.05); ratio (geometric mean) = 1.01 (90% CI 0.64-1.61). An extended study with a larger number of subjects may possibly provide clearer answers. The narrow 90% confidence limits of paracetamol indicate bioequivalence: AUC(OR) = 37 microg mL(-1) h; AUC(NT) = 41 microg mL(-1) h(p > 0.05); ratio (geometric mean) = 1.12 (90% CI 0.98-1.28).

Conclusion: The results of this study show that the nasogastric route of administration does not appear to cause marked, clinically unsuitable alterations in the bioavailability of the tested drugs.

Citing Articles

Medication Administration Through Feeding Tubes in a Tertiary Hospital: A Retrospective Observational Study.

Zhu Y, Zhu B, Jin P Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2025; 18:319-328.

PMID: 39911206 PMC: 11796436. DOI: 10.2147/RMHP.S500557.


Gastric emptying and acetaminophen: lessons learnt from the several co-administered drugs on the experimental design.

Srinivas N Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2015; 72(3):369-71.

PMID: 26345546 DOI: 10.1007/s00228-015-1937-5.


Plasma levels of oral risperidone during enteral nutrition in a pregnant schizophrenic patient.

Oriolo G, Barbosa L, Imaz M, Garcia L, Borrego S, Parellada E Ther Adv Psychopharmacol. 2015; 5(2):133-7.

PMID: 26240750 PMC: 4521445. DOI: 10.1177/2045125314567115.

References
1.
Saklad J, Graves R, Sharp W . Interaction of oral phenytoin with enteral feedings. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1986; 10(3):322-3. DOI: 10.1177/0148607186010003322. View

2.
Stillings M, Havlik I, Chetty M, Clinton C, Schall R, Moodley I . Comparison of the pharmacokinetic profiles of soluble aspirin and solid paracetamol tablets in fed and fasted volunteers. Curr Med Res Opin. 2000; 16(2):115-24. View

3.
Lacey L, Keene O, PRITCHARD J, Bye A . Common noncompartmental pharmacokinetic variables: are they normally or log-normally distributed?. J Biopharm Stat. 1997; 7(1):171-8. DOI: 10.1080/10543409708835177. View

4.
Stangier J, Su C, Fraunhofer A, Tetzloff W . Pharmacokinetics of acetaminophen and ibuprofen when coadministered with telmisartan in healthy volunteers. J Clin Pharmacol. 2001; 40(12 Pt 1):1338-46. View

5.
Longe R, Smith O . Phenytoin interaction with an oral feeding results in loss of seizure control. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1988; 36(6):542-4. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1988.tb04026.x. View