Pharmaceutical Research

, Volume 11, Issue 12, pp 1742–1746

Effect of Current Magnitude and Drug Concentration on lontophoretic Delivery of Octreotide Acetate (Sandostatin®) in the Rabbit

  • David T.-W. Lau
  • John W. Sharkey
  • Lew Petryk
  • Frank A. Mancuso
  • Zhiling Yu
  • Francis L. S. Tse


The effect of current magnitude and drug concentration on transdermal iontophoretic delivery of octreotide acetate (Sandostatin®) was examined in the rabbit. Plasma samples were collected over 24 hours and octreotide concentrations were determined by a radioimmunoassay. Without an electrical current, negligible plasma concentrations of octreotide were obtained. Following initiation of iontophoresis, plasma concentrations of octreotide increased rapidly, although did not sustain at a plateau level during the dosing period. Octreotide concentrations declined rapidly after removal of the device. Increasing the electrical current from 50 µA/cm2 to 150 µA/cm2 yielded a proportional increase in the delivery. Increasing the drug concentration in the device from 2.5 mg/mL to 5 mg/mL resulted in approximately proportional increase in plasma octreotide concentrations; however, further increase in plasma concentrations was not observed for drug concentrations beyond 5 mg/mL. lontophoretic delivery at the conditions which yielded the highest octreotide concentrations in this study (5 mg/mL solution at 150 µA/cm2 for 8 hours) yielded an apparent bioavailability (which represents an underestimate of the absolute bioavailability determined when the patches are run to exhaustion) of approximately 8%.

iontophoresis octreotide transdermal peptide rabbit 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    W. Bauer, U. Briner, W. Doepfner, R. Haller, R. Huguenin, P. Marbach, T. J. Petcher, and J. Pless. SMS 201–995: a very potent and selective octapeptide analogue of somatostatin with prolonged action. Life Sci. 31:1133–1140, 1982.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. W. J. Lamberts, P. Uitterlinden, L. Verschoor, K. J. Van Dongen and E. Del Pozo. Long-term treatment of acromegaly with the somatostatin analogue SMS 201–995. N. Engl. J. Med. 313:1576–1580, 1985.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. M. Wood, M. E. Kraenzlin, T. E. Adrian, and S. R. Bloom. Treatment of patients with pancreatic endocrine tumours using a new long-acting somatostatin analogue. Symptomatic and peptide responses. Gut 26:438–444, 1985.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. Richter, F. Stockmann, B. Lemboke, J. M. Conlon, and W. Creutzfeldt. Short-term administration of the somatostatin analogue SMS 201–995 in patients with carcinoid tumours. Scand. J. Gastroenterol. 21(Suppl. 119):193–198, 1986.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    K. Kutz, E. Nüesch, and J. Rosenthaler. Pharmacokinetics of SMS 201–995 in healthy subjects. Scand. J. Gastroenterol. 21(Suppl. 119):65–72, 1986.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    E. Köhler, M. Duberow-Drewe, J. Drewe, G. Ribes, M. M. Loubatiéres-Mariani, N. Mazer, K. Gyr, and C. Beglinger. Absorption of an aqueous solution of a new synthetic somatostatin analogue administered to man by gavage. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 33:167–171, 1987.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    U. Theiβ, I. Kuhn, and P. W. Lücker. Iontophoresis—is there a future for clinical application? Meth. Find. Exp. Clin. Pharmacol. 13:353–359, 1991.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    O. Siddiqui, Y. Sun, J.-C. Liu, and Y. W. Chien. Facilitated transdermal transport of insulin. J. Pharm. Sci. 76:341–345, 1987.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. R. Burnette and D. Marero. Comparison between the iontophoretic and passive transport of thyrotropin releasing hormone across excised nude mouse skin. J. Pharm. Sci. 75:738–743, 1986.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. E. Sanderson, R. W. Caldwell, J. Hsiao, R. Dixon, and R. R. Tuttle. Noninvasive delivery of a novel inotropic catecholamine: Iontophoretic vs. intravenous infusion in dogs. J. Pharm. Sci. 76:215:218, 1987.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    B. H. Sage. Technical and developmental issues of iontophoretic transport of peptide and protein drugs, in Trends and Future Perspectives in Peptide and Protein Delivery, edited by V. H. L. Lee, M. Hashida, and Y. Mizshima. Harwood Academic Publishers, Switzerland (in press).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Gibaldi and D. Perrier. Pharmacokinetics (2nd edition), Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 1982, pp. 445–449.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Z. Yu, J. B. Schwartz, E. T. Sugita, and H. C. Foehl. Five modified numerical deconvolution methods for biopharmaceutics and pharmacokinetics studies. Submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. Vaughan and M. Dennis. Mathematical basis of point-area deconvolution method for determining in vivo input functions. J. Pharm. Sci. 67:663–665, 1978.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    IMSL. IMSL/IDL® Visual Numerics, Inc., Houston, TX, 1992.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    G. Fricker, J. Drewe, J. Vonderscher, T. Kissel, and C. Beglinger. Enteral absorption of octreotide. Br. J. Pharmacol. 105:783–786, 1992.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    V. H. L. Lee. Peptide and protein drug delivery: opportunities and challenges. Pharm. Int. 7:208–212, 1986.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    G. E. Peters. Distribution and metabolism of exogenous somatostatin in rats. Regul. Peptides 3:361–369, 1982.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. Lemaire, M. Azria, R. Dannecker, P. Marbach, A. Schweitzer, and G. Mauer. Drug Metab. Dispos. 17:699–703, 1989.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    E. Del Pozo, M. Neufeld, K. Schlüter, F. Tortosa, P. Clarenbach, E. Bieder, L. Wendel, E. Nüesch, P. Marbach, H. Cramer, and L. Kerp. Endocrine profile of a long-acting somatostatin derivative SMS 201–995: Study in normal volunteers following subcutaneous administration. Acta Endocrinol. 111:433–439, 1986.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    A. J. Hoogstraate, V. Srinivasan, S. M. Sims, and W. I. Higuchi. Iontophoretic behavior of leuprolide versus model permeants. Proceed. Intern. Symp. Control. Rel. Bioact. Mater., 18:299–300, 1991.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    B. Delgado-Charro and R. H. Guy. Transdermal delivery of nafarelin, an LHRH-analogue, by iontophoresis. Pharm. Res. 9(suppl):S-67, 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • David T.-W. Lau
    • 1
  • John W. Sharkey
    • 3
  • Lew Petryk
    • 1
  • Frank A. Mancuso
    • 3
  • Zhiling Yu
    • 1
  • Francis L. S. Tse
    • 1
  1. 1.Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics Department, Drug Safety, Sandoz Research InstituteSandoz Pharmaceuticals CorporationEast Hanover
  2. 2.Department of Pharmacology, Amgen Inc.Thousand Oaks
  3. 3.Pharmacy Research Group, Technical R&D, Sandoz Research InstituteSandoz Pharmaceuticals CorporationEast Hanover

Personalised recommendations