J Clin Pharmacol
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bleske, B.
Right arrow Articles by Shea, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bleske, B.
Right arrow Articles by Shea, M.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Articles

The effect of dosage release formulations on the pharmacokinetics of propranolol stereoisomers in humans

BE Bleske, LS Welage, S Rose, GL Amidon, and MJ Shea

Recent studies in dogs have suggested that the disposition of S- and R-propranolol may depend on the input rate of drug delivered to the liver. Therefore, this study was designed to determine whether differences in the disposition of S- and R-propranolol occur in humans when altering the input rate of propranolol by giving different dosage forms of the drug. Twelve healthy subjects were enrolled in a single-dose, 4-way crossover pharmacokinetic study in which racemic propranolol was given according to 1 of 4 treatments: one 80-mg immediate-release (IR) tablet, phase A; two 80-mg IR tablets, phase B; a 160-mg controlled-release capsule, phase C; or a 10-mg IV bolus, phase D. The results showed no significant differences in the ratios of S/R-propranolol for AUC, clearance, or overall mean concentration among the oral dosage groups. Significant differences in these parameters including Cmax S/R ratio were seen between the oral phases and the IV phase. These differences appear to be related more to the route of administration than to the low input rate. However, at high concentrations there may be input-rate alteration in S/R ratios. Specifically, for phase B, which had the highest Cmax concentrations, the Cmax S/R ratio was significantly lower than the other oral dosage groups A and C (Cmax S/R ratios: 1.44 versus 1.54 and 1.54, respectively; P < .05).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1995 by the American College of Clinical Pharmacology