Pharmacokinetics and Acid Suppressant Efficacy of Esomeprazole after Intravenous, Oral, and Subcutaneous Administration to Healthy Beagle Dogs

• Published in: Journal of veterinary internal medicine Vol. 31; no. 3; pp. 743 - 750
• Main Authors: Hwang, J.‐H., Jeong, J.‐W., Song, G.‐H., Koo, T.‐S., Seo, K.‐W.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States John Wiley and Sons Inc 01-05-2017
• Subjects: Administration, Oral; Animals; Anti-Ulcer Agents - administration & dosage; Anti-Ulcer Agents - blood; Anti-Ulcer Agents - pharmacokinetics; Anti-Ulcer Agents - pharmacology; Area Under Curve; Bravo pH; Cross-Over Studies; Dogs; Esomeprazole - administration & dosage; Esomeprazole - blood; Esomeprazole - pharmacokinetics; Esomeprazole - pharmacology; Esophagus - drug effects; Female; Hydrogen-Ion Concentration - drug effects; Injections, Intravenous - veterinary; Injections, Subcutaneous - veterinary; Intragastric pH; Male; Proton pump inhibitor; Reference Values; SMALL ANIMAL; Bravo pH; Intragastric pH; Proton pump inhibitor
• ISSN: 0891-6640; 1939-1676
• DOI: 10.1111/jvim.14713

Background
Esomeprazole is an S‐enantiomer of omeprazole that has favorable pharmacokinetics and efficacious acid suppressant properties in humans. However, the pharmacokinetics and effects on intragastric pH of esomeprazole in dogs have not been reported.
Objective
To determine the pharmacokinetics of esomeprazole administered via various routes (PK study) and to investigate the effect of esomeprazole on intragastric pH with a Bravo pH monitoring system (PD study).
Animals
Seven adult male Beagle dogs and 5 adult male Beagle dogs were used for PK and PD study, respectively.
Methods
Both studies used an open, randomized, and crossover design. In the PK study, 7 dogs received intravenous (IV), subcutaneous (SC), and oral doses (PO) of esomeprazole (1 mg/kg). Each treatment period was separated by a washout period of at least 10 days. Esomeprazole plasma concentrations were measured by HPLC/MS/MS. In the efficacy study, intragastric pH was recorded without medication (baseline pH) and following IV, SC, and PO esomeprazole dosing regimens (1 mg/kg) in 5 dogs.
Results
The bioavailability of esomeprazole administered as PO enteric‐coated granules and as SC injections was 71.4 and 106%, respectively. The half‐life was approximately 1 hour. Mean ± SD percent time intragastric pH was ≥3 and ≥4 was 58.9 ± 21.1% and 40.9 ± 17.3% for IV group, 75.8 ± 16.4% and 62.7 ± 17.7% for SC group, 88.2 ± 8.9% and 82.5 ± 7.7% for PO group, and 12.5 ± 3.6% and 3.7 ± 1.8% for baseline. The mean percent time with intragastric pH was ≥3 or ≥4 was significantly increased regardless of the dosing route (P < .05).
Conclusion
The PK parameters for PO and SC esomeprazole administration were favorable, and esomeprazole significantly increased intragastric pH after IV, PO, and SC administration. IV and SC administration of esomeprazole might be useful when PO administration is not possible. No significant adverse effects were observed.