Advertisement

Clinical Pharmacokinetics

, Volume 35, Issue 3, pp 173–190 | Cite as

Sustained Relief of Chronic Pain

Pharmacokinetics of Sustained Release Morphine
  • Geoffrey K. GourlayEmail author
Review Articles Drug Disposition

Abstract

There are a number of modified release formulations of morphine with recommended dosage intervals of either 12 or 24 hours, including tablets (MS Contin®, Oramorph SR®), capsules (Kapanol®, Skenan®), suspension and suppositories. Orally administered solid dosage forms are most popular but significant differences exist in the resultant pharmacokinetics and bioequivalence status of morphine after both single doses and at steady state. Following single doses, the plasma morphine concentrations showed pronounced differences in the 0- to 12-hour period with a 4- to 5-fold difference in the mean peak concentration (Cmax) for morphine and the time to Cmax(tmax) The area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) from 0 to 24 hours for the 4 formulations show greater similarity. None of the formulations were shown to be bioequivalent according to US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) criteria.

At steady state, fluctuations in plasma morphine concentrations throughout a 12-hour dosage interval were greatest for MS Contin and least for Kapanol. In fact, the relatively small fluctuations in plasma morphine concentrations following Kapanol administration suggested the same formulation could successfully be used with a 24-hour dosage interval.

The pharmacokinetic parameters of morphine following Kapanol once daily were similar to MS Contin (12 hours) with the obvious exception of the longer tmax. There is also another once daily oral morphine preparation (MXL) which has been shown to be bioequivalent to Kapanol under fasting conditions only in a single dose study in volunteers.

Food has been shown to have an effect on the pharmacokinetics of morphine following doses of immediate release solution and the modified release preparations. However, bioequivalence is generally maintained between the fed and fasting states for most preparations.

MS Contin tablets have been administered rectally, but morphine pharmacokinetic parameters show greater variability compared with oral administration and the 2 routes are not bioequivalent. The results suggest a slower rate but greater extent of morphine adsorption. Somwhat similar results were obtained when Kapanol granules are administered rectally. The morphine pharmacokinetics following administration of a specifically formulated controlled release suppository showed less variability (rectal bioavailability was 42%).

The pronounced differences in morphine pharmacokinetics between the various formulations are not translated into measurable differences in the pharmaco-dynamic effects of pain relief and adverse effects. The lack of bioequivalence between some of the formulations suggests that care should be exercised if physicians change modified release formulations as dosage adjustments may be necessary in some patients.

Keywords

Morphine Adis International Limited Clin Drug Invest Morphine Sulfate High Performance Liquid Chromatogra 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Traynor JR. The μ-opioid receptor. Pain Rev 1996; 3: 221–48.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Simonin F, Gaveriaux-Ruff C, Befort K, et al. K-opioid receptor in humans: cDNA and genomic cloning, chromosomal assignment, functional expression, pharmacology and expression pattern in the nervous system. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1995; 92: 7006–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Befort K, Kieffer BL. Structure-activity relationships in the 8- opioid receptor. Pain Rev 1997; 4: 100–21.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clausen TG. International opioid consumption. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1997; 41: 162–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Richards AH. The use of controlled release morphine sulfate (MS Contin) in Queensland 1990–1993. Med J Aust 1995; 163: 181–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Graziotti PJ, Goucke CR. The use of oral opioids in patients witn chronic non-cancer pain: management strategies. Med J Aust 1996; 167: 30–4.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schug SA, Merry AF, Acland RH. Treatment principles for the use of opioids in pain of non-malignant origin. Drugs 1991; 42: 228–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maddox JD, Joranson D, Angarola RT, et al. The use of opioids for the treatment of chronic pain [position statement]. Clin J Pain 1997; 13: 6–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Angarola RT, Wray SD. Legal Impediments to cancer pain treatment. In: Hill Jr CS, Fields WS, editors. Advances in pain research and therapy. Vol. 11. New York: Raven Press, 1989: 213–31.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Twycross RG, Lack SA. Oral morphine in advanced cancer. Beaconsfield: Beaconsfield Publishers, 1984.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gourlay GK, Cherry DA, Cousins MJ. A comparative study of the efficacy and pharmacokinetics of oral methadone and morphine in the treatment of severe pain in patients with cancer. Pain 1986; 25: 297–312.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hill HF, Chapman CR, Saeger LS, et al. Steady-state infusions of opioids in human: II. Concentration-effect relationships and therapeutic margins. Pain 1990; 43: 69–79.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gourlay GJ, Kowalski SR, Plummer JL, et al. Fentanyl blood concentration-analgesic response relationship in the treatment of post-operative pain. Anesth Analg 1988; 67: 329–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Smith KJ, Miller AJ, McKellar J, et al. Morphine at gramme doses: kinetics, dynamics and clinical need. Postgrad Med J 1991; 67 Suppl. 2: S 5 5–9.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kaiko RF, Grandy RP, Oshlack B, et al. The United States experience with oral controlled-release morphine (MS Contin tablets): Pts I and II. Review of nine dose titration studies and clinical pharmacology of 15mg, 30mg, 60mg, and 100mg tablet strengths in normal subjects. Cancer 1989; 63: 2348–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jones R, Hale E, Talomsin L, et al. Kapanol™ capsules: pellet formulation provides alternative methods of administration of sustanied release morphine sulfate. Clin Drug Invest 1996; 12: 88–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Donnadieu S, Hernot N, Suard L. Oral administration of sustained release morphine sulfate granules in patients with pain and dysphagia associated with cancer. Clin Drug Invest 1997; 14 Suppl. 1: 43–52.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Drake J, Kirkpatrick CT, Aliyar CA, et al. Effect of food on the comparative pharmacokinetics of modified-release morphine tablet formulations: Oramorph SR and MST Continus. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1996; 41: 417–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bourget P, Lesne-Hulin A, Quinquis-Desmaris V. Study of the bioequivalence of two controlled-release formulations of morphine. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 1995; 33: 588–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hunt TL, Kaiko RF. Comparison of the pharmacokinetic profiles of two oral controlled-release morphine formulations in healthy young adults. Clin Ther 1991; 13: 482–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Maccarrone C, West RJ, Broomhead AF, etal. Single dosepharmacokinetics of Kapanol™, a new oral sustained-release morphine formulation. Drug Invest 1994; 7: 262–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    D’Emanuele A. Responsive polymeric drug delivery systems: meeting the patients needs. Clin Pharmacokinet 1996; 31: 241–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    De Bernardi M, De Bernardi F, Colombo P. Randomised crossover comparison of the pharmacokinetic profiles of two sustained release morphine sulfate formulations in patients with cancer related pain. Clin Drug Invest 1997; 14 Suppl. 1: 28–33.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Aitkenhead AR, Pinnock CA, Smith G. Pharmacokinetics of two preparations of slow-release oral morphine sulfate in volunteers. Anesthesiol Rev 1988; 15: 31–3.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance oral extended (controlled) release dosage forms in vivo bioequivalence and in vitro dissolution testing. Rockville (MD): Division of Bioequivalence, Office of Generic Drugs; Centre for Drug Evalution and Research, US Food and Drug Administration. 1993 Sep.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Patnaik RN, Lesko LJ, Chen ML, et al. Individual bioequivalence: new concepts in the statistical assessment of bioequivalence metrics. Clin Pharmacokinet 1997; 33: 1–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schall R, Muller FR, Muller FO, et al. Bioequivalence of controlled-release calcium antagonists. Clin Pharmacokinet 1997; 32: 75–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bashaw ED, Kaiko RF, Grandy RP, et al. Relative bioavailability of controlled-release oral morphine sulfate during naltrexone blockade. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 1995; 33: 524–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rosen S, Grandy R, Benziger D, et al. Minimal cimetidine effect on MS Contin® tablet pharmacokinetics [abstract no. 224]. 8th World Congress on Pain; 1996 Aug 17–22; Vancouver.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Drake J, Horth CE, Crawford FE. A reply [letter]. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1996; 42: 646–7.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Miller AJ, Smith KJ. Effect of food on the comparative pharmacokinetics of modified-release morphine tablet formulations, Oramorph SR and MST Continus [letter]. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1996; 42: 645.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Aherne GW, Littleton P. Morphine-6-glucuronide, an important factor in interpreting morphine radio-immunoassays. Lancet 1985; II: 210–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kaiko RF. The effect of food intake on the pharmacokinetics of sustained-release morphine sulfate capsules. Clin Ther 1997; 19: 296–303.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kaiko RF, Lazarus H, Cronin C, et al. Controlled-release morphine bioavailability (MS Contin®tablets) in the presence and absence of food. Hospice J 1990; 6: 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Broomhead A, West R, Kadirgamanathan G, et al. Comparative bioavailability of sustained-release morphine sulfate capsules versus pellets. Clin Drug Invest 1997; 14: 137–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gourlay GK, Plummer JL, Cherry DA, et al. Influence of a high fat meal on the absorption of morphine from oral solutions. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1989; 46: 463–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gourlay GK, Plummer JL, Cherry DA, et al. The reproducibility of bioavailability of oral morphine from solution under fed and fasted conditions. J Pain Symptom Manage 1991; 6: 431–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Poulain P, Hoskin PJ, Hanks GW, et al. Relative bioavailability of controlled-release morphine tablets (MST Continus) in cancer patients. Br J Anaesth 1988; 61: 569–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Schobelock MJ, Shepard KV, Mosdell KW, et al. Multiple-dose pharmacokinetic evaluation of two formulations of sustained release morphine sulfate tablets. Curr Ther Res 1995; 56: 1009–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gourlay GK, Plummer JL, Cherry DA, et al. A comparison of Kapanol (a new sustained-release morphine formulation), MST Continus, and morphine solution in cancer patients: pharmacokinetics aspects of morphine and morphine metabolites. In: Gebhart GF, Hammond DL, Jensen TS, editors. Progress in pain research and management. Seattle (WA): IASP Press, 1994: 631–43.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hasselstrom J, Alexander N, Bringel C, et al. Single-dose and steady-state kinetics of morphine and its metabolites in cancer patients: a comparison of two oral formulations. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1991; 40: 585–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hanks GW, Hanna M, Finlay I, et al. Efficacy and pharmacokinetics of a new controlled-release morphine sulfate 200mg tablet. J Pain Sympton Manage 1995; 10: 6–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gourlay GK, Cherry DA, Onley MM, et al. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of twenty-four-hourly Kapanol compared to twelve-hourly MS Contin in the treatment of severe cancer pain. Pain 1997; 69: 295–302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gourlay GK, Plummer JL, Cherry DA. Chronopharmacokinetic variability in plasma morphine concentrations following oral doses of morphine solution. Pain 1995; 61: 375–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Barberi-Heyob M, Merlin JL, Poulain P, et al. Circadian variations in morphine and morphine-6-glucuronide pharmacokinetics after oral and subcutaneous administration: first results [abstract]. Eur J Cancer 1991; 27 Suppl. 2: 286.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kaiko R, Grandy R, Thomas G, et al. A single-dose study of the effect of food ingestion and timing of dose administration on the pharmacokinetic profile of 30-mg sustained release morphine sulfate tablets. Curr Ther Res 1990; 447: 869–78.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Bass J, Shepard KV, Lee JW, et al. An evaluation of the effect of food on the oral bioavailability of sustained-release morphine sulfate tablets (Oramorph SR) after multiple doses. J Clin Pharmacol 1992; 32: 1003–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Walsh TD, MacDonald N, Bruera E, et al. A controlled study of sustained-release morphine sulfate tablets in chronic pain from advanced cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 1992; 15: 268–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Finn JW, Walsh TD, MacDonald N, et al. Placebo-blinded study of morphine sulfate sustained-release tablets and immediate-release morphine sulfate sulution in outpatients with chronic pain due to advanced cancer. J Clin Oncol 1993; 11: 967–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Deschamps M, Band PR, Hislop TG, et al. The evaluation of analgesic effects in cancer patients as exemplified by a doubleblind, crossover study of immediate-release versus controlled-release morphine. J Pain Symptom Manage 1992; 7: 384–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ahmedzai S, Brooks D. Transdermal fentanyl versus sustainedrelease oral morphine in cancer pain: efficacy, and quality of life. J Pain Symptom Manage 1997; 13: 254–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Broomhead A, West R, Eglinton L, et al. Comparative singledose pharmacokinetics of sustained-release and modifiedrelease morphine sulfate capsules under fed and fasting conditions. Clin Drug Invest 1997; 13: 162–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    O’Brien T, Mortimer PG, McDonald CJ, et al. A randomized crossover study comparing the efficacy and tolerability of a novel once-daily morphine preparation (MXL capsules) with MST Continus tablets in cancer patients with severe pain. Palliative Med 1997; 11: 475–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Smith KJ, McKellar J, Sinclair KA, et al. The influence of food on the pharmacokinetics of morphine from MST Continus suspension [abstract no. 1004]. VIIth World Congress on Pain; 1993 Aug 22–27; Paris, 382.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kaiko RF, Fitzmartin RD, Thomas GB, et al. The bioavailability of morphine in controlled-release 30mg tablets per rectum compared with immediate-release 30mg rectal suppositories and controlled-release 30mg oral tablets. Phar-macotherapy 1992; 12: 107–13.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Darke A, Moulin D, Provencher L, et al. Efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of controlled release morphine suppositories and tablets in cancer pain [abstract]. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1995; 57: 165.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Campbell WI. Rectal controlled-release morphine: plasma levels of morphine and its metabolites following the rectal administration of MST Continus 100mg. J Clin Pharm Ther 1996; 21: 65–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Wilkinson TJ, Robinson BA, Begg EJ, et al. Pharmacokinetics and efficacy of rectal versus oral sustained-release morphine in cancer patients. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1992; 31: 251–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Babul N, Darke AC, Anslow JA, et al. Pharmacokinetics of two novel rectal controlled-release morphine formulations. J Pain Symptom Manage 1992; 7: 400–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Bruera E, Fainsinger R, Spachynski K, et al. Steady-state pharmacokinetic evaluation of a novel, controlled-release morphine suppository and subcutaneous morphine in cancer pain. J Clin Pharmcol 1995; 35: 666–72.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Nahata MC. Plasma concentrations of morphine in children with chronic pain-comparison of controlled release and regular morphine sulfate tablets. J Clin Pharm Ther 1991; 16: 193–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Osborne R, Joel S, Trew D, et al. Morphine and metabolite behaviour after different routes of morphine administration: demonstration of the importance of the active metabolite morphine-6-glucuronide. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1990; 47: 12–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Van Dongen RTM, Crul BJP, Koopman-Kimenai PM, et al. Morphine and morphine-glucuronide concentrations in plasma and CSF during long-term administration of oral morphine. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1994; 38: 271–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Wolff T, Samuelsson H, Hedner T. Morphine and morphine metabolite concentrations in cerebrospinal fluid and plasma in cancer pain patients after slow-release oral morphine administration. Pain 1995; 62: 147–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Wahlstrom A, Winblad B, Bixo M, et al. Human brain metabolism of morphine and naloxone. Pain 1988; 35: 121–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Faura CC, Collins SL, Moore RA, et al. Systematic review of factors affecting the ratios of morphine and its major metabolites. Pain 1998; 74: 43–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chief Medical Scientist, Pain Management UnitFlinders Medical CentreSouth AustraliaAustralia

Personalised recommendations