FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Vet Surg / Evaluation of pharmacokinetics of metoclopramide administere...
Veterinary surgery : VS2024; doi: 10.1111/vsu.14128

Evaluation of pharmacokinetics of metoclopramide administered via subcutaneous bolus and intravenous constant rate infusion to adult horses.

Abstract: To determine the pharmacokinetics (PK) of metoclopramide administered via intravenous continuous rate infusion (IV CRI) and subcutaneous (SC) bolus and evaluate for gastrointestinal motility and adverse side effects. Methods: Experimental study; randomized, crossover design. Methods: Six healthy adult horses. Methods: Each horse received metoclopramide via IV CRI (0.04 mg/kg/h for 24 h) and SC bolus (0.08 mg/kg once), with ≥1 week washout period between. Plasma was analyzed by UPLC-MS/MS. Compartmental modeling was used to determine PK parameters for each treatment; nonparametric superposition was used to simulate multiple SC bolus regimens. Gastrointestinal motility and evidence of adverse effects were monitored. Results: T (h) for SC bolus was 0.583 ± 0.204 versus 17.3 ± 6.41 for IV CRI, while C (ng/mL) was 27.7 ± 6.38 versus 43.6 ± 9.97, respectively. AUC (h × ng/mL) was calculated as 902 ± 189 for 24 h IV CRI versus 244 ± 37.4 simulated for 0.08 mg/kg SC bolus every 8 h. Simulations revealed similar exposure between groups with administration of 0.96 mg/kg/day SC bolus, divided into three, four, or six doses. SC bolus bioavailability was estimated as 110 ± 11.5%. No clear trends in motility alteration were identified. No adverse effects were noted. Conclusions: Repeated SC boluses of metoclopramide at 0.08 mg/kg would result in lower total drug exposure and T than IV CRI administration but would be highly bioavailable. Conclusions: Higher and/or more frequent SC bolus doses are needed to achieve a similar AUC to IV CRI. No adverse effects were noted; however, evaluation of alternative dosing strategies is warranted.
© 2024 The Author(s). Veterinary Surgery published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Veterinary Surgeons.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2024-06-24 PubMed ID: 38925540DOI: 10.1111/vsu.14128Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The research explores the pharmacokinetics or how the body processes the drug metoclopramide in adult horses, and how this is affected by different methods of administration, and explores its effect on gastrointestinal motility and possible adverse side effects. It concludes that while subcutaneous administration of the drug resulted in lower overall exposure and duration, it was effectively absorbed into the body, with further research needed to determine optimized dosage strategies.

Research Design

  • This is an experimental study with a randomized, cross-over design, involving six healthy adult horses.
  • The horses were given metoclopramide via two methods – through a continuous rate infusion into the vein (IV CRI), and through a single dose injected under the skin (SC bolus).
  • There was a washout period of at least a week between the two treatments to ensure there was no carryover effect of the drug from the first treatment phase during the second treatment phase.
  • Plasma was analysed using Ultra Performance Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS). This is a highly sensitive technique used for plasma analysis.
  • They applied a method known as compartmental modeling to determine the pharmacokinetics parameters for each treatment and nonparametric superposition to model multiple SC bolus dosages.

Findings

  • The study found that the average time for the drug to peak in the body (T max) for SC bolus was significantly lower (0.583 hours) compared to IV CRI (17.3 hours).
  • Peak concentrations (C max) of the drug was also lower via SC bolus administration compared to the IV CRI method.
  • Area under the concentration time curve (AUC) which measures overall drug exposure, was lower with SC bolus administration compared to IV CRI, but would increase to similar levels as the IV CRI group at an overall daily dose of 0.96 mg/kg/day divided into three, four or six doses. SC bolus administration was estimated to be 110% bioavailable, meaning that it was completely absorbed by the body.
  • There were no clear trends in alteration of gastrointestinal motility, suggesting the drug had no significant influence on this.
  • No adverse side effects were noted in the research study.

Conclusions

  • The study concludes that for a similar drug exposure to the IV CRI method, the SC bolus method requires higher or more frequent doses. Even so, the drugs are suitably absorbed in the body when administered subcutaneously.
  • While the study found no adverse effects, the authors suggest further evaluation of alternative dosing strategies is needed to determine optimal dosages.

Cite This Article

APA
Brandon AM, Williams JM, Davis JL, Martin EG, Capper AM, Crabtree NE. (2024). Evaluation of pharmacokinetics of metoclopramide administered via subcutaneous bolus and intravenous constant rate infusion to adult horses. Vet Surg. https://doi.org/10.1111/vsu.14128

Publication

Veterinary surgery : VS
ISSN: 1532-950X
NlmUniqueID: 8113214
Country: United States
Language: English

Researcher Affiliations

Brandon, Amy M
  • Department of Large Animal Medicine, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA.
Williams, Jarred M
  • Department of Large Animal Medicine, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA.
Davis, Jen L
  • Department of Biomedical Sciences and Pathobiology, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA.
Martin, Emily G
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA.
Capper, Ava M
  • Department of Large Animal Medicine, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA.
Crabtree, Naomi E
  • Department of Large Animal Medicine, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA.

Grant Funding

  • University of Georgia

References

This article includes 26 references
  1. Damen S. Equine gastro‐intestinal motility – a review on prokinetics, spasmolytics and their receptors.. 2016 [Master's thesis; University of Ghent].
  2. Van Hoogmoed LM, Nieto JE, Snyder JR. Survey of prokinetic use in horses with gastrointestinal injury.. Vet Surg 2004;33:279‐285.
  3. Agass RF, Brennan M, Rendle DI. Extrapyramidal side effects following subcutaneous metoclopramide injection for the treatment of post operative ileus.. Equine Vet Educ 2017;29(10):564‐568.
  4. Dart AJ, Peauroi JR, Hodgson DR. Efficacy of metoclopramide for treatment of ileus in horses following small intestinal surgery: 70 cases (1989–1992).. Aust Vet J 1996;74(4):280‐284.
  5. Epstein K, Short D, Parente E, Reef V, Southwood L. Serial gastrointestinal ultrasonography following exploratory celiotomy in normal adult ponies.. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2008;49:584‐588.
  6. Freeman DE, Hammock P, Baker GJ. Short‐and long‐term survival and prevalence of postoperative ileus after small intestinal surgery in the horse.. Equine Vet J 2000;32(32):42‐51.
  7. Gerring EEL, Hunt JM. Pathophysiology of equine postoperative ileus: effect of adrenergic blockade, parasympathetic stimulation and metoclopramide in an experimental model.. Equine Vet J 1986;18:249‐255.
  8. Lawson AL, Sherlock CE, Mair TS. Equine duodenal motility, assessed by ultrasonography, as a predictor of reflux and survival following colic surgery.. Equine vet Educ 2021;33(2):84‐89.
  9. Lefebvre D, Hudson NPH, Elce YA. Clinical features and management of equine post operative ileus (POI): survey of diplomates of the American colleges of veterinary internal medicine (ACVIM), veterinary surgeons (ACVS) and veterinary emergency and critical care (ACVECC).. Equine Vet J 2016;48:714‐719.
  10. Beder NA, Mourad AA, Aly MA. Ultrasonographic evaluation of the effects of the administration of neostigmine and metoclopramide on duodenal, cecal, and colonic contractility in Arabian horses: a comparative study.. Vet World 2020;13(11):2447‐2451.
  11. Delsalle C, Lefebvre RA, Schuurkes JAJ. Gastro‐intestinal motility in horses: a practical overview of the therapeutic use of prokinetic agents.. Vlaams Diergeneeskd Tijdschr 2006;75:122‐139.
  12. Hunt JM, Gerring EL. A preliminary study of the effects of metoclopramide on equine gut activity.. J vet Pharmacol Therap 1986;9:109‐112.
  13. Lefebvre D, Pirie RS, Handel IG, Tremaine WH, Hudson NPH. Clinical features and management of equine post operative ileus: survey of diplomates of the European colleges of equine internal medicine (ECEIM) and veterinary surgeons (ECVS).. Equine Vet J 2016;48:182‐187.
  14. Nieto JE, Rakestraw PC, Snyder JR, Vatistas NJ. In vitro effects of erythromycin, lidocaine, and metoclopramide on smooth muscle from the pyloric antrum, proximal portion of the duodenum and middle portion of the jejunum of horses.. Am J Vet Res 2000;61:413‐419.
  15. Okamura K, Sasaki N, Yamada M, Yamada H, Inokuma H. Effects of mosapride citrate, metoclopramide hydrochloride, lidocaine hydrochlorides, and cisapride citrate on equine gastric emptying, small intestinal and caecal motility.. Res Vet Sci 2009;86:302‐308.
  16. Sojka JE, Adams SB, Lamar CH. Effect of butorphanol, pentazocine, meperidine, or metoclopramide on intestinal motility in female ponies.. Am J Vet Res 1988;49(4):527‐529.
  17. Lee HW, Ji HY, Kim HY, Park ES, Lee KC, Lee HS. Determination of metoclopramide in human plasma using hydrophilic interaction chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry.. J Chromatogr B 2009;877(18–19):1716‐1720.
  18. Shah VP, Midha KK, Dighe S. Analytical methods validation: bioavailability, bioequivalence and pharmacokinetic studies.. Pharm Res 1992;9:588‐592.
  19. Gomaa N, Uhlig A, Schusser GF. Effect of Buscopan compositum on the motility of the duodenum, cecum and left ventral colon in healthy conscious horses.. Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr 2011;124(3–4):168‐174.
  20. Mitchell CF, Malone ED, Sage AM, Niksich K. Evaluation of gastrointestinal activity in healthy horses using B mode and doppler ultrasonography.. Can Vet J 2005;46(2):134‐140.
  21. Patton ME, Leise BS, Baker RE, Andrews FM. The effects of bit chewing on borborygmi, duodenal motility, and gastrointestinal transit time in clinically normal horses.. Vet Surg 2022;51:88‐96.
  22. VanderBroek AR, Reef VB, Aitken MR. Assessing gastrointestinal motility in healthy horses comparing auscultation, ultrasonography and an acoustic gastrointestinal surveillance biosensor: a randomised, blinded, controlled crossover proof of principle study.. Equine Vet J 2019;51:246‐251.
  23. Grimsrud KN, Mama KR, Steffey EP, Stanley SD. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of intravenous medetomidine in the horse.. Vet Anaesth Analg 2012;39:38‐48.
  24. Boscan P, Van Hoogmoed LM, Farver TB, Snyder JR. Evaluation of the effects of the opioid agonist morphine on gastrointestinal tract function in horses.. Am J Vet Res 2006;67(6):992‐997.
  25. Elfenbein JR, Robertson SA, Corser AA, Urion RJ, Sanchez LC. Systemic effects of a prolonged continuous infusion of ketamine in healthy horses.. J Vet Intern Med 2011;25(5):1134‐1137.
  26. King JN, Gerring EL. The action of low dose endotoxin on equine bowel motility.. Equine Vet J 1991;23(1):11‐17.

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,359 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.