Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Jet injection is a drug delivery system without a needle. A compressed liquid drug formulation pierces the skin, depositing the drug into the subcutaneous or intramuscular tissues. We investigated the pharmacokinetics and patient experience of dexmedetomidine administered using jet injection in six healthy adult study participants. This needleless jet injection device was used to administer dexmedetomidine 0.5 μg/kg to the subcutaneous tissues overlying the deltoid muscle. Serum concentrations of dexmedetomidine were assayed at approximately 5 minutes, 15 minutes, 30 minutes, 1 hour and 4 hours after administration. Pharmacokinetic interrogation of concentration time profiles estimated an absorption half time for jet-injected dexmedetomidine of 21 minutes (coefficient of variation 69.4%) with a relative bioavailability assumed unity. In our samples the measured median peak (range) concentration was 0.164 μg/l (0.011–0.325 μg/l), observed in the sample taken at a median (range) of 13.5 minutes (11–30 minutes). The Richmond agitation sedation scale was used to assess the sedative effect, and scored 0 (alert and calm) or –1 (drowsy) in all participants. Five of the six participants stated they would prefer jet injection to needle injection in the future and one had no preference. The findings suggest that the use of a larger dose (>2 μg/kg) would be required to achieve the clinically relevant target concentration of 1 μg/l necessary to achieve deeper sedation (Richmond agitation sedation scale ≤3).

Keywords

Dexmedetomidine pharmacokinetics pharmacodynamics drug delivery sedation

Introduction

Dexmedetomidine is a highly selective alpha 2-adrenergic receptor agonist that is often used as a premedication to decrease the stress and anxiety involved with induction of anaesthesia. It is usually given using intravenous or intranasal routes.¹^,² There is considerable between-subject variability associated with intranasal bioavailability (F_IN 40.7%, coefficients of variation (CV) 31.8%) and absorption half time (T_ABS 58 minutes, CV 29%).^1
–4 The intravenous route is commonly used intraoperatively, but bradycardia and bimodal blood pressure changes are associated with the rapid changes in plasma concentration.⁵^,⁶

A potential alternative method of administration is jet injection whereby liquid drug is compressed to a high pressure (>10 MPa) and formed into a jet approximately the width of a human hair.⁷ This hair-thin jet allows the fluid itself to penetrate the skin and deposit in the subcutaneous or intramuscular tissues.⁸^,⁹ By performing delivery without a needle, jet injection avoids the associated issue of needle phobia.⁷ Jet injection is a rapid procedure with delivery of drug taking less than 1 second. These benefits could allow jet injection to overcome the difficulties (e.g. patient anxiety, pain) associated with intravenous cannula placement for administration of dexmedetomidine while also improving the accuracy of dose administration compared with intranasal delivery. We investigated dexmedetomidine pharmacokinetics when given using a jet injection device and the experience of the delivery method by the participants. Time concentration profiles from the limited number of participants in this current study were pooled with time concentration profiles determined after intravenous administration in order to estimate absorption half time (T_ABS) of the drug delivered by jet injection, a clinically useful parameter to compare with other methods of administration.

Materials and methods

This was a healthy adult pharmacokinetic study of dexmedetomidine administered using a jet injection device. Physiological observations and sedation scores were recorded and participants were asked about pain on injection of this delivery method.

The study protocol was approved by the New Zealand Health and Disability Ethics Committee (reference 21/STH/212). Inclusion criteria were age 18 years or older, capacity to understand the purpose and requirements of the study, adequate written and verbal English language skills for all communication to be conducted in English and to provide written consent. Exclusion criteria were pregnancy or plans of pregnancy in next 6 months, a known medical condition, resting heart rate lower than 45 beats/minute (bpm), conduction issues on ECG, known allergy or sensitivity to dexmedetomidine and any other medication taken within the previous 24 hours.

Ten fasted (6 hours for food and 2 hours for clear fluids) participants were admitted to the study site on a single day. On arrival, baseline observations and ECG were performed and written consent was obtained. Three participants were excluded after minor conduction variants on their ECG were noted. A further participant was excluded because medication had been taken the previous evening. A 20 g intravenous (IV) cannula was inserted in the hand or forearm for blood sampling and administration of fluid or medications in case of unexpected adverse reaction. Dexmedetomidine 0.5 µg/kg was prepared from a 200 µg/ml ampoule (Teva Pharma, Australia), and checked in duplicate; and then administered to each participant using the Comfort-in jet injection device (Mika Medical Co., Busan, Korea) into the subcutaneous tissue over the deltoid muscle.

Discomfort during jet injection was assessed using a visual analogue pain scale (0, no pain; 10, worst pain imaginable) during and after dexmedetomidine administration. Heart rate and oxygen saturations were monitored continuously while participants were observed in the recovery unit of our operating theatres by anaesthetic staff and nurses trained and experienced in sedation care.

Clinical observations (heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate, blood oxygen saturation) were measured every minute for the first 10 minutes, every 5 minutes for the following hour, and every 30 minutes for next 6 hours. Sedation scores using both the Richmond agitation sedation scale (RASS),¹⁰ which ranges from unrousable (−4) to combative (+4), and a subjective sedation scale were also recorded at these times by nursing staff.

Five venous blood samples (5 mL each sample) were obtained from the IV cannula at time intervals of 3–5 minutes, 7–15 minutes, 20–40 minutes, 1–1.2 hours and 4–6 hours. IV cannulae were flushed with 2 mL normal saline 30 seconds prior to tourniquet placement for sampling. The initial draw (5 mL) was discarded prior to each sample to avoid cross-contamination between samples or with saline flush. The intravenous cannulae were flushed with 5 mL of saline after each sample was taken. Plasma from the samples was separated using a centrifuge at 500 g for 15 minutes and stored at −80°C before drug assay.

The jet injector

Jet injection achieves needle-free drug delivery by forming the drug into a high-speed jet that can break through the skin. These jets are typically around 200 µm in diameter, and travel at a speed between 100 m/s and 200 m/s.⁷ Intradermal, subcutaneous, and/or intramuscular delivery has been demonstrated using needle-free jet injection; typically limited to a volume much less than 1 mL (Figure 1). The device used in this study uses a spring to pressurise the drug and form the high-speed jet. This device was designed for subcutaneous delivery of insulin and the speed of the jet is consistent with other studies in which subcutaneous delivery was observed.⁹ However, a small amount of injectate reaching the muscle cannot be excluded in subjects where the subcutaneous fat layer is thin.

Figure 1.

Spring driven jet injection. SC: subcutaneous.

Dexmedetomidine assay

Measurements of dexmedetomidine in plasma were performed using an in-house developed and validated liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) assay. Briefly, a simple one-step protein precipitation with acetonitrile was used for plasma sample preparation. After precipitation, the clear supernatant was directly injected into the LC-MS/MS system. Dexmedetomidine and its corresponding isotopically labelled internal standard were resolved on a C18(2) column and detected using electrospray ionization LC-MS/MS in the positive mode. Dexmedetomidine standard curve was adequately fitted by 1/x weighted quadratic regressions (r > 0.999) over the concentration range of 0.001–0.1 µg/L (r > 0.999) and the lower limit of the quantification was 0.001 µg/L. The accuracy and precision were assessed at the low, medium and high-level quality controls. There was no constant direction to the bias quality controls and the mean values were within 10% of the spiked values. The intra and inter-day CV over the analysed concentration ranges were less than 10%. The recoveries of dexmedetomidine from plasma at concentrations of quality controls were similar and consistent, with mean values greater than 95%. No significant matrix effects were observed. Two assays were performed for each sample and the average is reported.

Population modelling

Data pooling

This was a small preliminary study with six participants and a limited number of samples per participant. Therefore, estimation of pharmacokinetic parameters (e.g. clearance and volume) using the study data alone was imprecise. However, the clearance (CL) and volume (V) of dexmedetomidine have been described and this prior knowledge can be used to facilitate estimation of absorption parameters (absorption half time T_ABS, relative bioavailability F_JET).¹¹ When using a one-compartment mammillary model:

Concentration = \frac{F_{JET} \times dose \times k a}{V (k a - \frac{CL}{V})} \times (e^{- \frac{CL}{V} \times time}) - (e^{- k a \times time})

(1)

estimation of absorption parameters is simplified if clearance and volume parameters are known. Estimation of clearance and volume, parameters that are not formulation specific, can be achieved by pooling time-concentration data from¹²^,¹³ this current study with those from investigations using intravenous administration (Potts and colleagues,¹⁴^,¹⁵ Cortinez et al.,¹⁶ Rolle et al.,¹⁷ Talke and Anderson).¹⁸ Analysis of these pooled data without the additional observations from the current study are available and details of data sources, pharmacokinetic analysis and results are published.¹⁹

Pharmacokinetic analysis

A two-compartment pharmacokinetic model with first order elimination was used to describe dexmedetomidine pharmacokinetics. The model was parameterized in terms of clearance (CL), volumes of distribution (V1, V2) and intercompartmental clearance (Q2). Allometric theory was used to quantify size-related changes in pharmacokinetic parameters. A depot compartment was used to model the absorption rate constant (ka) that was expressed as an absorption half-time (T_ABS):

T_{ABS} = \frac{Log n}{k a}

(2)

Pharmacokinetic parameters (e.g. CL, Q2, V1, V2) were standardized to an adult measure of body size with a standard weight of 70 kg using allometric scaling.^20
–22 Population parameter variability (PPV) was accounted for using an exponential model for the random effect variables (η). This assumes a log-normal distribution and avoids parameter estimates falling below biologically plausible values.

Residual unidentified variability (RUV) was modelled using both proportional and additive residual errors. The between-subject variability (η_RUV,i) of the RUV was also estimated for data.

Population parameter estimates were obtained using non-linear mixed effects models (NONMEMs; 7.5 ICON Development Solutions, USA) with first-order conditional estimation and a convergence criterion set to three significant digits. The population mean parameters, between-subject variance and residual variance were estimated using the first order conditional interaction estimate method using ADVAN13 TOL = 9 of NONMEMs.

Model selection was also based on parameter plausibility and prediction-corrected visual predictive checks (PC-VPC) plots.²³ Shrinkage considers the quality of the observed data. The term η-shrinkage refers to the between-subject variability. When the observed data are informative η-shrinkage approaches zero and when the data are less informative it approaches 1. Bootstrap methods provided a means to evaluate parameter uncertainty.²⁴ A total of 100 bootstrap replications were used to estimate parameter means and confidence intervals. Results from the population models are presented as parameter estimates, together with their 95% confidence intervals. Between-subject parameter variability is expressed as an apparent coefficient of variation obtained from the square root of the variance estimate.

Simulation using parameter estimates

To see how our results might translate into clinical practice, a simulation study was performed using a differential equation solver (Berkeley Madonna, Robert Macey and George Oster of the University of California at Berkeley, USA) to investigate the likely plasma concentrations in adults when given a sedative dose of dexmedetomidine (0.5 mg) using the jet injector; and compared with intranasal dexmedetomidine 3 µg/kg. Pharmacokinetic parameter estimates and their variability from this current analysis were used to predict individual time–concentration profiles after jet injection. An absorption half-time for nasal administration of 58 minutes (CV 29%) with a relative bioavailability of 40% (CV 31.9%) and an effect compartment equilibration half-time of 3.3 minutes was assumed for intranasal administration.²

Results

There were six participants aged 19–30 years (four women and two men), weighing 58–95 kg available for data collection for the study.

Pharmacokinetics

Descriptive non-compartmental analysis

The observed median peak concentration (C_MAX) was 0.164 µg/l (range 0.011–0.325 µg/l) and was observed (T_MAX) at a median of 13.5 minutes (range 11–30 minutes) after jet injection. There was one participant with very low plasma concentrations (Figure 2), which was associated with incomplete delivery of the dexmedetomidine dose to that subject, evident by injectate present on the skin surface after jet injection.

Figure 2.

Dexmedetomidine serum concentration profiles for each subject. There was one participant with a very low serum concentration (dashed line), which was associated with incomplete delivery of the dexmedetomidine dose to that participant. Dexmed: dexmedetomidine.

Pooled compartment pharmacokinetics

Parameter estimates for the pooled data determining the dexmedetomidine model are shown in Table 1. There were 2204 dexmedetomidine concentrations that were amenable for modelling in the pooled dexmedetomidine pharmacokinetic analysis. This pooled data analysis included 30 drug concentrations from the six participants administered dexmedetomidine using the jet injector. A two-compartment pharmacokinetic model was adequate to describe concentration profiles. The final model included allometric scaling of pharmacokinetic parameters using total body weight. The PC-VPC plots are shown in Figure 3. The absorption half time was 21 minutes (CV 69.4%) with a relative bioavailability of the jet (F_JET) assumed unity. The relative bioavailability in the one participant who had a poorly performed injection, and with low plasma concentrations, was 16%.

Table 1.

Dexmedetomidine population pharmacokinetic parameter estimates.

	Estimate	PPV (%)	Bootstrap median	95% CI	Sh %
V1 (L/70 kg)	27.3	92.7	28.8	24.8, 34.0	11.1
V2 (L/70 kg)	69.9	69.9	70.2	77.5	9.4
CL (L/min/70 kg)	0.677	41.6	0.688	0.653, 0.836	3.8
Q2 (L/min/70 kg)	1.09	79.1	1.09	0.918, 1.27	11.1
F_JET	1 FIX	–	–
T_ABS min	21.1	69.4	20.9	12.9, 39.8	69.4
Additive residual error (µg/L)	0.004	31.1	0.004	0.003, 0.006	0.6
Proportional residual error (%)	21	–	21.1	19.8, 22.4	–

Bootstrap median and 95% confidence interval (CI) determined from 100 bootstrap replications.

CL: clearance; Q2: intercompartmental clearance; V1: central volume of distribution; V2: peripheral volume of distribution; RUV_ADD: additive residual unidentified variability; RUV_PROP: proportional residual unidentified variability; PPV%: population parameter variability; Sh: shrinkage.

Figure 3.

Prediction-corrected visual predictive check (PC-VPC) for the universal dexmedetomidine pharmacokinetic model. Plots show median (solid) and 90% intervals (dashed lines). The left-hand plot shows all prediction corrected observed dexmedetomidine concentrations. The right-hand plot shows prediction corrected percentiles (10%, 50% and 90%) for observations and predictions (dashed lines) with 95% confidence intervals for prediction percentiles (median, 5th and 95th) with shading.

Simulation

Due to the nature of our study, serum samples were only available for analysis at discrete time points. The limited number of these, especially just after injection meant the true plasma peak may have occurred just before or after the observed highest measured serum concentration. There is consequently considerable imprecision with observed C_MAX and T_MAX estimates. Simulation concentration profiles using estimated pharmacokinetic parameters and their associated between-subject variability allows better estimation of these confounded parameters (C_MAX and T_MAX).

Time–concentration profiles (1000 simulations) after a modelled jet injection of dexmedetomidine 0.5 mg/kg, and after intranasal delivery of dexmedetomidine 3 mg/kg are shown in Figure 4. The C_MAX of 0.41 µg/l was achieved at a T_MAX of 25 minutes after jet injection. The C_MAX 0.5 µg/l was achieved at a T_MAX of 40 minutes after intranasal administration.

Figure 4.

Simulated time–concentration profiles comparing a jet injection of dexmedetomidine 0.5 µg/kg (upper panel) and intranasal delivery of dexmedetomidine 3 µg/kg (lower panel). An absorption half-time for nasal administration of 58 minutes (coefficients of variation (CV) 29%) with a relative bioavailability of 40% (CV 31.9%) and an effect compartment equilibration half-time of 3.3 minutes was assumed for intranasal administration.

Pharmacodynamics

Sedation

In this study the objective sedation scores (RASS) were all 0 (alert and calm) or −1 (drowsy). These sedation scores reflect minimal sedation. Some subjective sedation was self-reported by five participants, and no subjective sedation was reported by one participant. This participant was not the one with the lowest observed concentration profile and their observed peak plasma concentration (C_MAX) was below 0.2 µg/l. A relaxed feeling was reported by the participant with the lowest measured plasma concentrations.

Cardiovascular changes

The participants’ heart rate decreased between 20% and 30% following dexmedetomidine administration over a wide range of time. The lowest heart rates generally occurred between 2 minutes and 180 minutes, but there was one self-resolving symptomatic 46% reduction in heart rate to 42 bpm with systolic blood pressure of 81 mmHg, consistent with a vasovagal episode, associated with intravenous line removal 365 minutes after dexmedetomidine administration. Excluding this event, the systolic blood pressure systolic reduction range was 11–22% with nadirs occurring between 30 and 90 minutes. These modest effects are consistent with previously reported cardiovascular pharmacodynamics of dexmedetomidine.

Local injection site effects

A range of pain on injection was reported from 1/10 to 8/10 (visual analogue scale 0–10). Five participants stated a preference for jet injection over a needle in the future. The remaining participant felt they would be equivalent. The participant with the lowest pain score on injection had an incomplete injection with some injectate present on the skin after injection. There were no visible signs of irritation at any of the injection sites during the study and no pain, redness, irritation or any other issues were reported on phone follow-up the next day.

Discussion

This preliminary study demonstrates the potential of jet injection as a method of dexmedetomidine administration in awake participants. The device proved satisfactory for most participants, but is operator dependant; drug delivery was poor in one participant in whom injectate was evident on the skin surface after jet injection, and relative bioavailability was only 16%. The absorption half-time of 21 minutes (95% confidence interval 12.9 to 39.8 minutes) was associated with considerable between-subject variability (CV 69.8%).

Absorption of jet-injected dexmedetomidine from subcutaneous tissue was moderately slow (T_ABS 21 minutes), although more than twice as quick as that reported with intranasal delivery (T_ABS 58 minutes).² Rapid achievement of sedation using dexmedetomidine is undesirable because the drug causes adverse cardiovascular effects, worsened with the high concentrations associated with a rapid bolus dose.²⁵ It has been suggested that the administration of an intravenous loading dose of dexmedetomidine should be over 10–20 minutes, at a dose rate of 6 µg/kg/hour.²⁶ Thus the absorption half-time after jet injection (Figure 4) could be considered akin to slow intravenous infusion. The onset time after jet injection is shorter than after nasal administration, but concentrations are sustained above a target concentration for a longer duration than intravenous bolus.

Dexmedetomidine 0.5 µg/kg delivered by jet injection in this study achieved plasma concentrations below 0.4 µg/l. We report RASS scores of 0 (alert and calm) or –1 (drowsy) in all volunteers. These sedation scores are consistent with a sedation pharmacodynamic model that reported modified observer’s assessment of alertness/sedation (MOAA/S 0–5) score of greater than 4 with a corresponding bispectral index of 80–100 with plasma concentrations less than 0.4 µg/l.¹ In order to achieve some clinical sedation (i.e. bispectral index 80–60 and MOAA/S 3–4), it would be necessary to achieve an effect compartment concentration range of 0.6–1 µg/l. These concentrations would require a larger dose of dexmedetomidine of around 1.5 µg/kg. Consistent with our observations, previous studies have shown that subcutaneously delivered dexmedetomidine has attenuated cardiovascular effects compared with IV drug administration.²⁷ The slower absorption avoids the high peak plasma concentrations, and thus has fewer consequent cardiovascular changes, which would be an advantage over IV administration.

None of the participants would prefer a needle injection to this spring-loaded jet injection in the future. However, some reported pain scores on jet injection that might be unacceptable in some patient groups (e.g. children). The comfort and success of a jet injection depends on the jet characteristics, such as the speed and shape of the jet,⁹^,²⁸ as well as how the device contacts the skin surface tissue. Electronically controllable jet injectors are a future option that could improve understanding of the relationship between jet injector characteristics and comfort.²⁹ Bennett et al. compared jet and needle injection of midazolam and saline.³⁰ The authors showed that although jet injection was less painful than needle injection in both groups, jet injection of midazolam was more painful than needle injection of saline. When administered to children jet-injected midazolam was found to have a lower parental satisfaction score than oral midazolam,³¹ but jet-injected midazolam had higher parental satisfaction when compared with IV midazolam.³² Greenburg et al. noted groups of children receiving larger volumes of jet-injected midazolam were associated with more discomfort and crying over a volume range of approximately 0.1–0.7 ml.³³ Despite the limitations of jet injection in some settings, avoidance of the needle alone may have advantages in agitated adult patients, to avoid the danger of sharps injuries, or for specific needle phobia.

The delivery of doses required to reach clinically useful levels of sedation in the adult population using our study device would require more than one jet injection. To achieve this in a single injection two options could be considered for future investigation; use of a larger injectate volume or use of a more concentrated formulation of dexmedetomidine. Concerns about pain on injection may limit the larger injectate volume.

Footnotes

Author Contribution(s)

Nicola M Whittle: Conceptualization; Data curation; Funding acquisition; Investigation; Methodology; Project administration; Writing – original draft.

Jamie W Sleigh: Data curation; Formal analysis; Funding acquisition; Investigation; Methodology; Resources; Supervision; Validation; Visualization; Writing – review & editing.

James W McKeage: Methodology; Resources; Writing – review & editing.

Jonathan Termaat: Data curation; Investigation; Project administration.

Logan J Voss: Data curation; Software; Writing – review & editing.

Brian J Anderson: Data curation; Formal analysis; Investigation; Methodology; Resources; Software; Supervision; Validation; Visualization; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Waikato Medical Research Foundation.

ORCID iDs

Nicola M Whittle

James W McKeage

Logan J Voss

References

Colin

Hannivoort

Eleveld

, et al. Dexmedetomidine pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling in healthy volunteers: 1. Influence of arousal on bispectral index and sedation. Br J Anaesth 2017; 119: 200–210. doi:10.1093/bja/aex085

Yuen

Goulay-Dufay

, et al. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of intranasal and intravenous dexmedetomidine. Br J Anaesth 2018; 120: 960–968. doi:10.1016/j.bja.2017.11.100

Iirola

Aantaa

Laitio

, et al. Pharmacokinetics of prolonged infusion of high-dose dexmedetomidine in critically ill patients. Crit Care 2011; 15: R257. doi:10.1186/cc10518

Iirola

Vilo

Manner

, et al. Bioavailability of dexmedetomidine after intranasal administration. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2011; 67: 825–831. doi:10.1007/s00228-011-1002-y

Ebert

Hall

Barney

, et al. The effects of increasing plasma concentrations of dexmedetomidine in humans. Anesthesiology 2000; 93: 382–394. doi:10.1097/00000542-200008000-00016

Colin

Eleveld

van den Berg

, et al. Monitoring as a potential tool to improve the prediction of intraoperative plasma concentrations. Clin Pharmacokinet 2015; doi:10.1007/s40262-015-0358-z

Mitragotri

Current status and future prospects of needle-free liquid jet injectors. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2006; 5: 543–548. doi:10.1038/nrd2076

McKeage

Ruddy

Nielsen

PMF

, et al. Power-efficient controlled jet injection using a compound ampoule. J Control Release 2018; 291: 127–134. doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2018.10.025

McKeage

Ruddy

Nielsen

PMF

, et al. The effect of jet speed on large volume jet injection. J Control Release 2018; 280: 51–57. doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2018.04.054

10.

Sessler

Gosnell

Grap

, et al. The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale: validity and reliability in adult intensive care unit patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002; 166: 1338–1344. doi:10.1164/rccm.2107138

11.

Sheiner

Grasela

TH.

An introduction to mixed effect modeling: concepts, definitions, and justification. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1991; 19: 11S–23S.

12.

Anderson

Allegaert

Holford

NH.

Population clinical pharmacology of children: general principles. Eur J Pediatr 2006; 165: 741–746. doi:10.1007/s00431-006-0188-y

13.

Anderson

Allegaert

Holford

NH.

Population clinical pharmacology of children: modelling covariate effects. Eur J Pediatr 2006; 165: 819–829. doi:10.1007/s00431-006-0189-x

14.

Potts

Anderson

Warman

, et al. Dexmedetomidine pharmacokinetics in pediatric intensive care–a pooled analysis. Paediatr Anaesth 2009; 19: 1119–1129. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9592.2009.03133.x

15.

Potts

Anderson

Holford

, et al. Dexmedetomidine hemodynamics in children after cardiac surgery. Paediatr Anaesth 2010; 20: 425–433. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9592.2010.03285.x

16.

Cortinez

Anderson

Penna

, et al. Influence of obesity on propofol pharmacokinetics: derivation of a pharmacokinetic model. Br J Anaesth 2010; 105: 448–456. doi:10.1093/bja/aeq195

17.

Rolle

Paredes

Cortinez

, et al. Dexmedetomidine metabolic clearance is not affected by fat mass in obese patients. Br J Anaesth 2018; 120: 969–977. doi:10.1016/j.bja.2018.01.040

18.

Talke

Anderson

BJ.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of dexmedetomidine-induced vasoconstriction in healthy volunteers. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2018; 84: 1364–1372. doi:10.1111/bcp.13571

19.

Morse

Cortinez

Anderson

BJ.

A universal pharmacokinetic model for dexmedetomidine in children and adults. J Clin Med 2020; 9: 3480. doi:10.3390/jcm9113480

20.

Anderson

Holford

NH.

Mechanism-based concepts of size and maturity in pharmacokinetics. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 2008; 48: 303–332. doi:10.1146/annurev.pharmtox.48.113006.094708

21.

Anderson

Holford

NH.

What is the best size predictor for dose in the obese child?

Paediatr Anaesth 2017; 27: 1176–1184. doi:10.1111/pan.13272

22.

Anderson

Meakin

GH.

Scaling for size: some implications for paediatric anaesthesia dosing. Paediatr Anaesth 2002; 12: 205–219. doi:10.1046/j.1460-9592.2002.00616.x

23.

Nguyen

Mouksassi

Holford

, et al. Model evaluation of continuous data pharmacometric models: metrics and graphics. CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol 2017; 6: 87–109. doi:10.1002/psp4.12161

24.

Efron

Tibshirani

Bootstrap methods for standard errors, confidence intervals, and other measures of statistical accuracy. Stat Sci 1986; 1: 54–77.

25.

Morse

Cortinez

Anderson

BJ.

Estimation of the loading dose for target-controlled infusion of dexmedetomidine. J Clin Med 2021; 10: 3004. doi:10.3390/jcm10143004

26.

European Medicines Agency. Dexdor (dexmedetomidine): an overview of Dexdor and why it is authorised in the EU. 2022. See https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/dexdor (accessed 22 May 2023).

27.

Uusalo

Al-Ramahi

Tilli

, et al. Subcutaneously administered dexmedetomidine is efficiently absorbed and is associated with attenuated cardiovascular effects in healthy volunteers. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2018; 74: 1047–1054. doi:10.1007/s00228-018-2461-1

28.

Park

Modak

Hogan

, et al. The effect of jet shape on jet injection. In: 37th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), Milan, Italy, 2015, pp. 7350–7353. doi:10.1109/EMBC.2015.7320089

29.

Taberner

Hogan

Hunter

IW.

Needle-free jet injection using real-time controlled linear Lorentz-force actuators. Med Eng Phys 2012; 34: 1228–1235. doi:10.1016/j.medengphy.2011.12.010

30.

Bennett

Nichols

Rosenblum

, et al. Subcutaneous administration of midazolam; a comparison of the Bioject Jet injector with the conventional syringe and needle. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1998; 56: 1249–1254. doi:10.1016/s0278-2391(98)90601-2

31.

Fine

Castillo

McDonald

, et al. Jet injection compared with oral midazolam for preoperative sedation in children. Pediatric Anesth 2004; 14: 739–743. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9592.2004.01294.x

32.

Hajimaghsoudi

Bagherabadi

Zarepur

, et al. Intravenous versus subcutaneous midazolam using jet-injector in pediatric sedation; a randomized clinical trial. Emergency 2018; 6: e53.

33.

Greenburg

Maxwell

Zahurak

, et al. Preanesthetic medication of children with midazolam using the Biojector jet injector. Anesthesiology 1995; 83: 264–269. doi:10.1097/00000542-199508000-00005

Preliminary pharmacokinetics and patient experience of jet-injected dexmedetomidine in healthy adults

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Materials and methods

The jet injector

Dexmedetomidine assay

Population modelling

Data pooling

Pharmacokinetic analysis

Simulation using parameter estimates

Results

Pharmacokinetics

Descriptive non-compartmental analysis

Pooled compartment pharmacokinetics

Simulation

Pharmacodynamics

Sedation

Cardiovascular changes

Local injection site effects

Discussion

Footnotes

Author Contribution(s)

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

References