Induration at Injection or Infusion Site May Reduce Bioavailability of Parenteral Phenobarbital Administration

Background: Phenobarbital is well tolerated and effective for controlling agitation or preventing convulsion at the end of life. No information is available concerning parenteral bioavailability of phenobarbital when induration develops at the injection or infusion site. We investigated whether induration at injection or infusion site is related to phenobarbital bioavailability via parenteral routes of continuous subcutaneous infusion and intermittent subcutaneous or intramuscular injection. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on the medical data obtained from 18 patients who received chronic subcutaneous or intramuscular injections of phenobarbital for the prevention of convulsions and underwent plasma concentration monitoring of the drug. Patients whose concomitant medications were altered during the observation periods were excluded from the analysis. Comparisons were performed for concentration/dose (C/D) ratios obtained from patients with induration at injection or infusion sites (induration group, n = 6) and those without induration (noninduration group, n = 12). P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The induration group showed significantly reduced C/D ratio compared with the noninduration group [median (range): 0.131 (0.114–0.334) versus 0.219 (0.180–0.322) d/L, P < 0.05). Assuming that systemic clearance was constant in our patients, changes in the C/D ratio would have contributed to 40% (median) reduction in bioavailability of the drug from the injection or infusion site. Conclusions: Our data suggest that absolute bioavailability of phenobarbital may be reduced when induration develops at the injection or infusion site in patients treated parenterally by continuous subcutaneous infusion or intramuscular injection.

[1]  B. Protus,et al.  Evaluation of Subcutaneous Phenobarbital Administration in Hospice Patients , 2016, The American journal of hospice & palliative care.

[2]  M. Orth,et al.  Comparability and Imprecision of 8 Frequently Used Commercially Available Immunoassays for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring , 2014, Therapeutic drug monitoring.

[3]  Brahim Tabarki,et al.  Antiepileptic drugs , 2014, Reactions Weekly.

[4]  R. Stupp,et al.  Epilepsy meets cancer: when, why, and what to do about it? , 2012, The Lancet. Oncology.

[5]  H. Bockbrader,et al.  Pregabalin effect on steady‐state pharmacokinetics of carbamazepine, lamotrigine, phenobarbital, phenytoin, topiramate, valproate, and tiagabine , 2010, Epilepsia.

[6]  B. Bourgeois,et al.  Antiepileptic drugs—best practice guidelines for therapeutic drug monitoring: A position paper by the subcommission on therapeutic drug monitoring, ILAE Commission on Therapeutic Strategies , 2008, Epilepsia.

[7]  U. Johansson,et al.  Impaired absorption of insulin aspart from lipohypertrophic injection sites. , 2005, Diabetes care.

[8]  P. Kwan,et al.  Phenobarbital for the Treatment of Epilepsy in the 21st Century: A Critical Review , 2004, Epilepsia.

[9]  J. Pereira,et al.  When midazolam fails. , 2002, Journal of pain and symptom management.

[10]  A. Tookman,et al.  The use of phenobarbitone in the management of agitation and seizures at the end of life. , 1999, Journal of pain and symptom management.

[11]  P. Storey,et al.  Subcutaneous infusions for control of cancer symptoms. , 1990, Journal of pain and symptom management.

[12]  T. Butler,et al.  The Distribution and Excretion of Phenobarbital , 1957 .