Chronopharmacokinetic and bioequivalence studies of two formulations of trimipramine after oral administration in man
The bioavailability of two oral formulations of trimipramine, tablets and solution, was performed in twelve healthy volunteers, in a cross-over study. Each formulation was administered in the morning after a fasted period, and in the evening after a meal, in order to evaluate the role of both administration time and food consumption on the plasma kinetic parameters, under usual therapeutic conditions. A high interindividual variability of data was found.
First, the extent of bioavailability was identical for the two formulations but the rate of bioavailability seemed to be different, with the p.o. solution, being more rapidly absorbed (tmax=1.50 h).
The effect of administration time was more obvious for the solution as shown by a lower quantitative absorption as well as a delay in time to reach the maximal concentration.
Regardless of formulation and administration time, the ty1/2 β was about 10 hours and the mean MRT value was 11 hours.
KeywordsTrimipramine chronopharmacokinetic bioequivalence
Kristof F.E., Lehmann H.E., Ban T.A. (1967): Systematic studies with trimipramine, a new antidepressive drug. Can. Psychiatr. Ass. J., 12, 517.Google Scholar
Vauterin C., Bazot M. (1979): A double-blind controlled trial of amineptine versus trimipramine in depression. Curr. Med. Res. Opin., 6, 101–106.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Caille G., Besner J.G., Laçasse Y., Vezina M. (1980): Pharmacokinetic characteristics of two different formulations of trimipramine determined with a new GLC method. Biopharm. Drug Dispos., 1, 187–194.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Abernethy D.R., Greenblatt D.J., Shader R.I. (1984): Trimipramine kinetics and absolute bioavailability. Use of gas-liquid chromatography with nitrogen-phosphorus detection. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther., 35, 348–353.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Cajlle G. et al. (1984): Pharmacokinetic and clinical parameters of zopiclone and trimipramine when administered simultaneously to volunteers. Biopharm. Drug Dispos., 5, 117–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bougerolle A.M., Chabard J.L., Jbilou M., et al. (1988): Simultaneous determination of trimipramine and its demethylated metabolites in plasma by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr., 434, 232–238.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Gibaldi M., Perrier D. (1982): Pharmacokinetics, ed. 2, New-York, Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Taburet A.M., Steimer J.L., Doucet D., Singlas E. (1986): Le temps de présence moyen dans l’organisme: un nouveau paramètre pharmacocinétique? Thérapie, 41, 1–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Dunnett C.W. (1955): Am. Stat Ass. J., 1096–1121.Google Scholar
Westlake W.J. (1972): Use of confidence intervals in analysis of comparative bioavailability trials. J. Pharm. Sci., 61, 1340–1341.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Hollander M., Wolfe D.A. (1973): Non parametric statistical methods. New York, Wiley, Ch. 4.Google Scholar
Snedelor G.W. (1962): Statistical methods. The Iowa State University Press, Ames.Google Scholar
Riegelmann S., Collier P. (1980): The applications of statistical moment theory in the evaluation of in-vivo dissolution time and absorption time. J. Pharmacokinet. Biopharm., 8, 509–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haginaka J., Yamaoka K., Nakagawa T. et al. (1979): Evaluation of effect of food ingestion on bioavailability of cephalexin by moment analysis. Chem. Pharm. Bull., 27, 3156–3159.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Bougerolle A.M., Chabard J.X., Dordain G., Gaillot J., Piron J.J., Berger J.A. (1984): Compared bioavailability of three oral forms of metapramine in human volunteers. Thérapie, 39, 619–624.PubMedGoogle Scholar