MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pharmacokinetics and anaesthetic effects of propofol‐PM: a novel water soluble propofol formulation

2008· article· en· W2001331344 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ann E. Rigby‐Jones, J. Robert Sneyd, François Ravenelle, Pascal Vachon, Dorothée Le Garrec, Sandra Gori, D. Lessard, David C Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueAnaesthesia · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Sedative Agents
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCardinal Health
KeywordsPropofolMedicinePharmacokineticsIsofluraneAnesthesiaPharmacodynamicsPlasma concentrationAlfentanilPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have investigated the use of amphiphilic diblock copolymers of poly (N-vinyl-2-pyrrolidone) and poly-(d,l-lactide), PVP-PLA, to dissolve propofol inside micelles (30–60 nm) – Propofol-PM. We compared the pharmacokinetics (PK) of propofol in blood and plasma when administered as 1% Diprivan and as three 1% solutions reconstituted from Propofol-PM 7, 10 and 12% respectively. We also undertook a preliminary pharmacodynamic (PD) study. Forty male Sprague–Dawley rats (325 ± 10 g) were randomly allocated to one of eight groups (five rats/group). Ten rats were used for each of the four propofol formulations: five rats for the collection of whole blood and five for plasma. The rats were anaesthetised with isoflurane and both jugular veins exposed. Isoflurane was then discontinued. When the animals responded to a hind paw pinch, they received propofol 10 mg.kg (1 ml.kg over 1 min) via the jugular vein. Blood samples were collected at 1, 3, 5, 7.5, 10, 15, 30, 60 and 75 min after injection. A PK model was constructed using nonmem software. Animal weight, sample matrix (blood or plasma) and propofol formulation (Diprivan, Propofol-PM 7, 10 and 12%) were evaluated as model covariates. In a separate small PD study, the times of the recovery endpoints (leg withdrawal, first movement, righting) were compared for the four propofol formulations. All experiments were conducted in accordance with guidelines from the Canadian Council on Animal Care and the Use of Laboratory Animals, and a certificate of conformity granted. The optimal PK model had two compartments and incorporated sample matrix and propofol formulation as dichotomous covariates (Fig. 1). Sample matrix was applied to all structural parameters. An influence of propofol formulation was observed for all structural model parameters (excluding distributional clearance) but only when plasma was used as the sample matrix. The effect of formulation was not apparent when whole blood concentrations of propofol were measured. The average model predicted profiles. Error bars show ± 1 SD. The whole blood PK of Propofol-PM did not differ from that observed with Diprivan. We observed lower propofol concentrations in plasma samples after Propofol-PM administration than after Diprivan but the quantity of the copolymer in the Propofol-PM formulations did not influence the PK. Although there was no statistically significant difference in any of the recovery endpoints, the number of animals in the PD study was small (n = 4–6 per formulation) and there was a high degree of variability. Hence, the PD study was likely underpowered to detect small differences and must be regarded as preliminary.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.568

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnaesthesiaSame topicAnesthesia and Sedative AgentsFrench-language works237,207