THE PHARMACOKINETICS OF DEXFENFLURAMINE IN OBESE AND NONOBESE SUBJECTS

Citation
G. Cheymol et al., THE PHARMACOKINETICS OF DEXFENFLURAMINE IN OBESE AND NONOBESE SUBJECTS, British journal of clinical pharmacology, 39(6), 1995, pp. 684-687
Citations number
17
Categorie Soggetti
Pharmacology & Pharmacy
ISSN journal
03065251
Volume
39
Issue
6
Year of publication
1995
Pages
684 - 687
Database
ISI
SICI code
0306-5251(1995)39:6<684:TPODIO>2.0.ZU;2-8
Abstract
The pharmacokinetics of dexfenfluramine (d-F) and its metabolite dexno rfenfluramine (d-NF) were compared in 10 obese (145 +/- 13 s.d. % of i deal body weight (IBW)) and 10 non-obese healthy volunteers (93 +/- 8% IBW). Each group included five men and five women, aged 28 +/- 8 year s. Subjects were given single doses of d-F i.v. (15.5 mg base infused over 3 h) and orally (25.9 mg base in capsules) on separate occasions. After i.v. infusion in obese subjects, the volume of distribution (V- ss) of d-F was significantly higher (969.7 +/- 393.3 1; 95% CI 688.6-1 250 1) than in controls (668.7 +/- 139.6 1; 95% CI 568.9-768.5 1; P < 0.01). Clearance was not significantly different (43.9 +/- 21.0 1 h(-1 ) vs 37.3 +/- 10.6 1 h(-1)) and the terminal half-life tended to be lo nger (17.8 +/- 9.4 vs 13.5 +/- 3.9 h NS). Combined data from the two g roups indicated a positive correlation between V-ss and % IBW (r = 0.5 44; P < 0.02), The oral bioavailability of d-F was 0.61 +/- 0.15 in ob ese subjects and 0.69 +/- 0.11 in controls. There was no significant d ifference between obese subjects and controls in C-max, t(max) and t(1 /2,z) (C-max: 20.1 +/- 6.7 and 27.3) 6.2 mu g l(-1); t(max): 3.5 vs 3. 0; t(1/2,z): 16.5 +/- 7.1 vs 14.5 +/- 2.6 h respectively). The AUC rat io expressed in molar units for d-F/d-NF was 2.29 +/- 1.78 (i.v.) vs 1 .25 +/- 0.64 (oral) in obese subjects and 2.05 +/- 1.26 (i.v.) vs 1.40 +/- 0.87 (oral) in controls. Thus d-F has a high clearance with a lar ge tissue distribution in both excess lipid and lean tissues and V-ss varies directly and significantly with body weight. The clinical signi ficance of these data is not known.