throbber
-—»—?
`
`Sol S. Zimmerman, M.D.
`Associate Professor of Clinical Pediatrics
`New York University School of Medicine
`Assistant Director of Pediatrics
`Director, Pediatric Intensive Care Unit
`University Hospital
`New York University Medical Center
`New York, New York
`
`ASSOCIATE EDITOR
`
`Joan Holter Gildea, R.N., B.S., M.A.
`Clinical Assistant Director of Nursing
`New York University Medical Center
`New York, New York
`
`
`
`
`
`1985
`W B. SAUNDERS COMPANY
`Philadelphia London Toronto Me><icoCity RiodeJaneiro Sydney Tokyo HongKong
`
`APOTEX - EXHIBIT 1021
`
`APOTEX - EXHIBIT 1021
`
`

`

`
`
`|nII|.IlIIflun2.I........I....rlx«l..|Iu|:|n..l..“.1.I...:..uv.....
`
`
`

`

`CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY IN THE CRITICALLY ILL CHILD / 91
`
`
`
`
`
`>1rI)
`
`IF'1*'1('D
`
`R
`CS5 = 6
`
`(14.3)
`
`R = Cl x C..
`
`'
`
`(14.3A)
`
`where R = rate of administration.
`Equation 14.3A emphasizes that it is drug clear-
`ance, rather than half-life, which determines
`the rate of administration (R) or dosage per
`interval (D/T) necessary to achieve a specific
`concentration. Ultimately, clearance is related
`to half—life and volume of distribution:
`
`C1 ___ W1
`ti/2
`
`when Vd is expressed in L/kg, half—life (t,,Z) in
`hours, and clearance (C1) in L/hr.
`With substitution into equation 14.3, this be-
`comes:
`
`concentration; in 3.3 half-lives, it will be 90
`percent; and in five half-lives,
`it will be 97
`percent of the plateau level.
`Dosage recommendations for continuous in-
`fusions are designed to produce appropriate
`plasma concentrations at equilibrium. The phe-
`nomenon just described, which is often termed
`drug accumulafion, entails a delay in achieving this
`concentration. The magnitude of the delay is
`related to the half—life of the drug, whereas the
`ultimate concentration is determined by the Vd,
`the half—life, and the rate of administration.
`
`Plasma Drug Clearance
`
`The plasma clearance (C1) of a drug is of
`primary importance in appreciating the rela-
`tionship between rate of drug administration
`and consequent drug concentration. Drug
`clearance, like creatinine or inulin clearances,
`is determined by relating the rate of elimination
`(E) to the plasma concentration at equilibrium
`(Css):
`
`E
`Cl=—
`CS5
`
`At equilibrium, E = R.
`
`hus,
`
`R
`C1 = ——
`'
`Css
`
`or, with rearrangement,
`
`R X til
`C5. = T” —
`-
`0.7 X «Vd >< Wt.
`
`14.4
`
`)
`
`(
`
`where R is expressed in mg/hr and C55 is ex-
`pressed in mg/L.
`Equation 14.4 indicates that equilibrium drug
`concentration is related to three variables: half-
`
`life (t.,2), volume of distribution (Vd), and rate
`of administration (R, or D/T). Thus, doubling
`Vd has the same effect upon steady state con-
`centration as halving t,,z. Either alteration will
`lead to a 50 percent reduction in drug concen-
`tration that can be exactly offset by doubling
`the dosage.
`I
`
`Multiple Dose Kinetics
`
`The reader has been introduced to the phe-
`nomenon of drug accumulation as it occurs
`during continuous infusion. Drug accumula-
`tion also occurs with intermittent dosage
`schedules.
`
`Consider a drug that is given by intermittent
`IV‘ injection. When the first dose is given, the
`concentration of drug is zero. Immediately after
`the dose, a peak concentration is recorded. The.
`concentration then declines at a rate deter-
`mined by the drug’s half—life. If the next dose
`is given before the concentration has once again
`reached zero, the second peak will be higher
`than the first. As this process continues, the
`peak (Cmx) and trough (Cmin) levels rise toward
`plateau values, as will the average concentra-
`tion, Cm. This process is illustrated in Figure
`14-4. Drug accumulation occurs during inter-
`mittent administration when a second, or nth,
`dose is administered before all the previous
`dose has been eliminated. For most clinical pur-
`poses, this condition is satisfied when the dos-
`ing interval is less than twice the half—life of
`the drug. As with continuous infusions, 50 per-
`cent of a plateau concentration is achieved in
`one half—life; 97 percent is achieved after five
`half-lives.
`
`Cm is analogous to the equilibrium concen-
`tration (Css) that develops during continuous
`infusion. Thus, its value is determined only by
`the relationship between clearance (Cl) and rate
`of administration (R; see Equation 14.3). The
`peak (Cmx) and trough (Cmin) concentrations
`fluctuate around the Cave in a manner that is
`determined by the size of the dose and the
`length of the dosing interval. For example,
`theophylline may be administered by inter-
`mittent IV injection. In an adult, a standard
`regimen calls for 300 mg every 6 hours (1200
`
`

`

`92 / GENERAL PROBLEMS AND TECHNIQUES OF CRITICAL CARE
`
`
`
`(mg/L)
`
`
`
`TheophyllineConcentration
`
`_L
`
`__O
`
`(J1
`
`-11l\)u]o'll|ll|'lllll
`
` T1 l
`
`!
`6
`
`2
`
`4
`1
`
`
`I.
`_I
`I
`.
`i_L
`1
`!
`1 _I_
`10 121416 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 Hours
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7 Number of
`Half-lives
`
`!
`8
`2
`
`
`
`Figure 14-4.
`Concentration of theophylline during intermittent IV administration. Note that CW, Cmin: and CM increase
`to equilibrium values. Cave = C55 that obtains during continuous administration if the total daily dosages are identical.
`
`
`
`
`remain within the respective therapeutic ranges
`throughout the dosing interval.
`
`
`
`mg/day). Alternatively, one may administer
`150 mg every 3 hours (1200 mg/day). Finally,
`some physicians administer a continuous in-
`fusion of 50 mg/hr (1200 mg/day). Both in-
`termittent regimens produce the same’ (Cm),
`which is equal to the C53 during the continuous
`infusion. This does not mean that the regimens
`are equivalent. The 6-hour schedule produces
`much greater fluctuation around Cm than the
`3-hour schedule. With the 3-hour regimen, the
`peaks and troughs lie closer to Cm. This in-
`creases
`the
`likelihood of remaining within the therapeutic
`range throughout the dosing interval (Fig. 14-
`5).
`'
`_
`In this regard, the half-life of a drug is a
`watershed. When a drug is given at an interval
`that is equal to its half—life (T = tvz), Cmax/Cmin
`is approximately 2. During more frequent
`administration (T < t%), Cm,/Cmin is less than
`2, and during less frequent administration
`(T > t./2), Cmx/Cm,“ is greater than 2.
`Thus, drugs with a long half—life, such as
`digoxin or phenobarbital, are often given once
`daily, because even with this schedule, T is less
`than ti/I and the plasma concentration remains
`within the relatively narrow therapeutic range
`of these agents. Conversely, theophylline and
`quinidine have relatively short half-lives (3 to
`6 hours in children). When conventional for-
`mulations of these agents are administered,
`they require‘ relatively frequent dosing (every
`3 to 6 hours) if the plasma concentration is to
`
`Nonlinear Kinetics
`
`To this point, the discussion has concerned
`/ir5f—order kinetic behavior in which a fixed pru-
`porfirm of drug is eliminated per unit time. Zero-
`order kinetics occurs under some conditions, no-
`tably when plasma drug concentrations are rel-
`
`
`
`
`
`Concentration(arbitraryunits)
`
`Dosage = D
`Interval = T = t.,,
`
`
`I
`Interval = T/2 = t.,,/2
`
`Dosage = DI2
`
`Time
`
`Effect of varying both dosage and dose
`Figure 14-5.
`interval upon peak (CW) and trough (Cmin) concentrations
`during steady state. The solid saw tooth line indicates the
`time concentration curve that results with intermittent IV
`administration of dosage D at an interval T equal to the
`drug t‘/2. Note that CW/Cm.“ = 2. The interrupted line
`indicates the curve that results when dosage (D/2) and
`interval (T/2) are halved. Cm“,/Cm = 1.5. The straight
`solid line indicates Cm, which is the.same during both
`conditions, and is equal to CSS, which results when the
`same total daily dosage is administered by continuous IV
`infusion.
`
`
`
`'
`
`

`

`
`
`CL|NlCA'._ PHARMACOLOGY IN THE CRITICALLY ILL CHILD / 93
`
`approaches Vmax, and zero-order behavior oc-
`curs.
`
`There are two important consequences of
`this kinetic behavior. The first is that an in-
`crease in dosage produces an exponential, rather
`than a linear rise in concentration. This occurs
`very often when treating patients with phen-
`ytoin (Fig. 14-6); on occasion, this phenomenon
`is recognized during treatment with theophyl-
`line. It requires that dosage adjustments must
`be made cautiously and in small amounts. The
`second major consequence of Michaelis—Men-
`ton kinetics is that the apparent plasma half—life
`increases with the plasma concentration. The
`greater the plasma concentration, the slower is
`the relative rate of elimination. Using repre-
`sentative values of Km and Vmax for phenytoin,
`one can estimate that at a concentration of 10
`mg per L, the apparent t,/2 of phenytoin is 24
`hours; at a concentration of 25 mg per L, the
`apparent t1/2
`is 42 hours. This means: 1) in-
`creases in dosage cause lengthening of the ap-
`parent t.,z (thus, Michaelis—Menton kinetics is
`sometimes referred to as dose dependent kinetics),
`2) small increments in dosage can produce huge
`increases in drug concentration, and 3) intox-
`ication with phenytoin will be prolonged, be-
`cause, at high concentrations, elimination is ex-
`tremely slow relative to the amount of drug in
`the body.
`
`MAINTENANCE DOSE
`
`The maintenance dose (MD) is the amount
`of drug (R for continuous infusion, D/T for an
`intermittent schedule) that is administered dur-
`ing equilibrium. Thus, from Equation 14.3A,
`maintenance dose, MD, is equal to the product
`of clearance, Cl, and desired steady state plasma
`concentration, C55,
`(MD 2 Cl
`>< C55). The
`maintenance dose is often determined by con-
`sulting standard reference material. In patients
`
`Phenytoin
`(Michaelis—Menton)
`
`
`
`Gentamicin
`(First-order)
`
`
`
`
`
`Daily Dosage
`
`Concentration
`
`Effect of dosage upon plasma concentra-
`Figure 14-6.
`tion for drugs following first-order vs. Michaelis—Menton
`kinetics.
`
`atively large. With zero order or nonlinear ki-
`netics, a fixed amount of drug is eliminated per
`unit time. Ethanol is an extreme example, be-
`cause the usual dosage is large (gm amounts)
`relative to other drugs (mg amounts). Within
`the usual range of blood ethanol concentra-
`tions, humans eliminate about 120 mg per kg
`per hr of the substance. Because the volume of
`distribution of ethanol is about 0.5 L per kg,
`blood ethanol levels decline at a fixed rate of
`20 to 25 mg/dl per hr. The rate of elimination
`does not change with increases in concentra-
`tion. Consequently, increments in dosage pro-
`duce much greater changes in concentration
`than would be the case for a drug eliminated
`in accordance with first—order kinetics.
`Many substances follow a first-order model
`at low plasma concentrations but a zero-order
`model at higher concentrations. When the tran-
`sition from first- to zero-order elimination oc-
`curs at concentrations appreciably higher than
`the usual therapeutic range, the pharmacoki-
`netic treatment of the drug is uncomplicated
`and a first-order kinetic model will be suffi-
`ciently accurate for most clinical purposes.
`Unfortunately, a few commonly used drugs,
`such as phenytoin and salicylate, exhibit this
`transition at concentrations within the thera-
`peutic range.
`A change from first'- to zero-order kinetics
`as concentration increases is typical of an en-
`zyme—mediated process. This change is due to
`saturation of the enzyme system that is re-
`sponsible for metabolic transformation of the
`drug. There is a limited amount of enzyme at
`the metabolic site; therefore, there is a maxi-
`mum rate at which transformation can occur
`(Vmax). At concentrations that are low relative
`to Vmax, first-order behavior predominates. As
`concentration increases, Vmx is approached.
`After Vmax has been achieved, further increases
`in concentration cannot augment the metabolic
`rate. Thus, a fixed amount of drug is metab-
`olized per unit time. This amount, of course, is
`equal to Vmax. Mathematically, this process is
`described by the Michaelis—Menton equation:
`
`_ V...“ X C
`E — Km + C
`
`(14.5)
`
`Where E is the rate of elimination or metabo-
`lism; Vma, is the maximum rate of metabolism;
`Km is the Michaelis—Menton constant, which
`defines the affinity of the enzyme for the drug;
`and C is plasma drug concentration.
`Note that when C is much less than Km, E
`Varies directly with C. This resembles a first-
`Order process. When C is greater than Km, E
`
`
`
`

`

`-—
`
`
`
`
`
`-.—u-a_..-..-_,.___.-.;_...i:.=..:=-..g;.s._:,_--...._.t_-..4x__....._—._-..-n._;_.
`
`i
`
`94/ GENERAL PROBLEMS AND TECHNIQUES OF CRITICAL CARE
`
`with abnormal drug disposition, better indi-
`vidualization of therapy is achieved if one ap-
`preciates the relationship between changes in
`C1 and consequent changes in CS5. Knowledge
`of a patient’s Cl can be used to calculate dosage
`requirements. This procedure is described in
`the case study at the conclusion of this chapter.
`It is not always appropriate to inifiate therapy
`with the maintenance dose. Both continuous
`
`and intermittent schedules produce a gradual
`rise from the initial (usually zero) to the equi-
`librium concentration. Recall that 75 percent of
`the plateau is reached in two half-lives, and 97
`percent is reached in five half-lives. Thus, for
`drugs that have a long half-life, there will be
`a substantial delay in acquisition of the plateau
`concentration. Because the plateau concentra-
`tion may be close to the minimum effective
`concentration, this delay may be unacceptable
`in acutely ill patients. For example, an asth-
`matic who is simply placed on a theophylline
`infusion will not begin to experience relief for
`about 8 hours.
`
`LOADING DOSE
`
`The solution to the problem of delay in
`achieving adequate levels is to administer a
`loading dose (LD). The loading dose is the
`amount of drug that will rapidly produce a
`therapeutic plasma concentration.
`If one is emphasizing a target concentration
`strategy, calculating the loading dose is simple,
`because the loading dose and the desired con-
`centration (C55) are related through the volume
`of distribution (see Equation 14.2). With ap-
`propriate modifications,
`this expression be-
`comes:
`
`1.13 = Vd(L/kg) >< Wt(kg) >< C5S(mg/L)
`
`(14.6)
`
`where C55 is the desired equilibrium concen-
`tration. Thus, for a child weighing 10 kg in
`whom one wishes to achieve a plasma theo-
`phylline (Vd = 0.5 L/kg) concentration of 12
`mg per L, the correct loading dose is 60 mg.
`This amount of drug should be administered
`slowly, over about a 15-minute period. Im-
`mediately thereafter, the appropriate mainte-
`nance dose is initiated. The effect of a loading
`dose is shown in Figure 14-7.
`If one is using an empirically derived main-
`tenance dose and is not attempting to achieve
`a specific drug concentration (target effect
`strategy), the problem is less straightforward.
`In such cases, it is probably best to consult
`
`
`
`PlasmaConcentration
`
`t1/2
`
`4 l1/2
`
`Time
`
`Figure 14-7. Administration of an appropriate loading
`dose eliminates the delay (4t.,,) in achieving equilibrium
`concentration, CS5. Solid line-infusion alone, beginning at
`T = 0. Interrupted |ine—|oading dose at T = 0, followed
`by continuous infusion.
`
`individual product information when designing
`the loading dose. Readers interested in a the-
`oretical approach to this issue should consult
`the suggested reading by Rowland and Tozer.
`When intravenous therapy is indicated, the
`loading dose is often given as a single rela-
`tively brief infusion. In the case of a drug with
`a narrow therapeutic range or a prolonged
`phase of distribution, the physician may choose
`to divide the loading dose, as is commonly done
`with digoxin. In general, a loading dose is not
`indicated when the half-life is much less than
`
`(i.e., drug accumulation
`the dosing interval
`does not occur) or when the therapeutic range
`is wide. Thus, penicillin therapy does not begin
`with a loading dose. Of course, a loading dose
`is not indicated when there is no urgency in
`achieving the equilibrium drug concentration.
`There is also no point in administering a load-
`ing close when the half-life of a drug is very
`short, as with most pressor agents, because
`equilibrium conditions are reached in a matter
`of minutes during continuous maintenance in-
`fusion.
`
`The foregoing kinetic description applies to
`intravenous administration. Following intra-
`muscular or oral administration one must ex-
`
`tend the analysis by taking into account the
`rate and extent of absorption. Drugs that are
`completely and efficiently absorbed after in-
`tramuscular injection should maintain a similar
`Cm, although peak and trough levels may lie
`closer to Cm (lower peak, higher trough). After
`oral administration, many drugs either are not
`completely absorbed from the gastrointestinal
`tract or once absorbed are efficiently extracted
`and then biotransformed on the first pass
`through the liver. This process effectively re-
`duces the dosage of drug that reaches the sys-
`temic circulation. Equations 14.2 through 14.4
`are modified by multiplying the dosage ad-
`
`

`

`CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY IN THE CRITICALLY ILL CHILD / 95
`
`ministered (R, or D/T) by fowl, the fraction of
`orally administered drug that reaches the sys-
`temic circulation. Several of the suggested read-
`ings contain a table of representative fem, values.
`
`KINETIC VAR|AT|ON—CL|N|CAL
`APPLICATION
`
`In the foregoing discussion, three variables
`that affect the plasma drug concentration have
`been identified: 1) the rate of administration
`(R, or D/T), 2) the volume of distribution (Vd),
`and 3) the half-life
`These three variables
`are related to one another through Equation
`14.4. Of these, only the rate of administration
`is under the physician's control. Thus, the art
`of pharmacokinetics consists of altering this
`parameter in order to compensate for individual
`differences in elimination or distribution.
`
`Altered Distribution
`
`Critical illness and the age of the patient af-
`fect the distribution of many drugs. Several
`mechanisms may be
`involved,
`including
`changes in the content or_ distribution of body
`water, alterations in plasma protein binding,
`perturbations in regional blood flow, and dif-
`ferences in body fat content.
`
`AGE—RELATED CHANGES
`
`The water content of the body changes dra-
`matically with age. At 28 weeks gestation, the
`water content of the body is 85 percent. This
`figure decreases to 70 percent at term and to
`60 percent in adults. There is a concurrent in-
`crease in the amount of body fat from 1 percent
`of body weight at 28 weeks to 15 percent at
`term, as well as altered binding to protein. Dis-
`ease (tachypnea, dehydration),
`the environ-
`ment in which the infant is nursed, and the
`volume and composition of administered fluids
`Produce fluctuations in body water. Thus, it is
`anticipated that drugs that are distributed
`mainly in the body water have a different, usu-
`ally greater, volume of distribution (Vd) in in-
`fants and young children than in adults. Table
`14-2 lists several drugs for which the Vd is
`kn0_Wn to differ between newborn infants and
`adults. This information provides the rationale
`_f0f many empirically determined dosage mod-
`ifications. A larger Vd does not necessarily in-
`volve a larger dosage. The actual determinant
`of the maintenance dosage requirement is clear-
`
`Table 14-2. Selected Drugs With Altered Volume
`of Distribution (Vd) in Neonates and Children
`
`Drug
`
`Effect on Vd
`
`1 N
`Diazepam
`T N, T C
`Digoxin
`T N,
`Furosemide
`T N,
`Gentamicin
`T N
`Lidocaine
`T N
`Phenobarbital
`T N
`Phenytoin
`
`Theophylline
`T N
`
`T C
`
`T = V,, larger; 1 = Vd smaller; N : neonate; and C =
`children older than 1 month. The effect of changes in Va
`may be modified by alterations in protein binding and
`elimination rate.
`
`ance. Clearance (Cl) is related to both Vd and
`half-life. In infants, drug half-life may be pro-
`longed (vide infra), and this may offset the
`increase in Vd (recall that C1 = 0.7 X Vd/t,,2).
`The net effect is frequently a reduced dosage
`requirement or an increased loading dose, fol-
`lowed by a reduced maintenance dose.
`
`DISEASE-RELATED CHANGES
`
`Several processes affect Vd by altering body
`water content, body fat content, or the degree
`of protein binding. Notable examples are ure-
`mia, chronic liver disease, and congestive heart
`failure.
`In uremia, the water content of the body is
`frequently greater than normal. This factor, to-
`gether with disturbed protein binding, causes
`the volume of distribution (Vd) of several drugs
`to increase (e.g., gentamicin) or decrease (e.g.,
`digoxin). As in newborns, the larger Vd is fre-
`quently accompanied by prolongation of drug
`half-life.
`Chronic liver disease is associated with de-
`creased levels of plasma proteins and with fluid
`accumulation. Thus, it is not surprising that the
`Vd of several drugs increases in the presence of
`cirrhosis. Other conditions associated with ex-
`tracellular fluid expansion also increase the dis-
`tribution of certain drugs; for example, ami-
`noglycoside antibiotics distribute into ascitic
`fluid. Thus, in the presence of ascites, the Vd
`of these agents may be substantially increased.
`In cystic fibrosis, the Vol of several of the ami-
`noglycosides seems to be higher than average.
`Unless daily dosage is increased, this may lead
`to subtherapeutic drug concentrations.
`Abnormalities of regional or global blood
`flow may reduce distribution by limiting per-
`fusion to sites of uptake. In patients with low-
`output states (congestive heart failure, CHF;
`shock), the rate of distribution is likely to be
`
` |é
`
`i i
`
`J_
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket