Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Formulation Selection and Pharmacokinetic Comparison of Fentanyl Buccal Soluble Film with Oral Transmucosal Fentanyl Citrate

A Randomized, Open-Label, Single-Dose, Crossover Study

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Clinical Drug Investigation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background and Objectives: BioErodible MucoAdhesive (BEMA®) is a new transmucosal drug delivery system designed to improve and ease the administration of drugs by this route. The first product that uses this novel delivery system contains fentanyl and is intended for the treatment of breakthrough pain in opioid-tolerant patients with cancer. The generic name is fentanyl buccal soluble film (FBSF). The objectives of this study were to compare the pharmacokinetic profile of FBSF formulations at three different pHs (pH 6, pH 7.25 and pH 8.5) and to understand the differences in the pharmaco-kinetics of fentanyl from FBSF compared with that of oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC).

Methods: This was a randomized, open-label, single-dose, four-period, Latin-square crossover study consisting of a 9-day inpatient treatment period. The study was conducted at a phase 1 clinical research unit in Austin, TX, USA. Twelve healthy subjects were enrolled, nine males and three females, between the ages of 21 and 44 years. Each subject received four 800 µg doses of fentanyl: single doses of the three FBSF formulations (pH 6, pH 7.25 and pH 8.5) and OTFC, with concurrent naltrexone. Plasma fentanyl concentrations were measured over a 48-hour period after each study dose. Pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated and compared.

Results: Peak plasma fentanyl concentrations (Cmax) and overall fentanyl systemic exposure (area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero extrapolated to infinity [AUC∞]) for each of the three FBSF formulations were greater than for OTFC. The pH 7.25 FBSF formulation provided the earliest time to reach Cmax (tmax), the highest Cmax value and the greatest AUC∞ value. Compared with OTFC, peak plasma fentanyl concentrations with pH 7.25 FBSF were significantly higher (mean Cmax 1.67 vs 1.03ng/mL; p<0.05). Overall exposure was also greater with pH 7.25 FBSF than with OTFC (mean AUC∞ 14.5 vs 10.3 ng · h/mL).

Conclusions: All three FBSF formulations produced greater peak plasma concentrations and overall exposure to fentanyl than OTFC. In particular, the pH 7.25 FBSF formulation showed the most favourable pharmacokinetic profile of the three FBSF formulations. In comparison with OTFC, the pH 7.25 FBSF formulation produced the fastest and most efficient fentanyl delivery and was selected for further clinical development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Table I
Table II

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Data on file, BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., Raleigh (NC), 2005

  2. Portenoy RK, Hagen NA. Breakthrough pain: definition, prevalence, and characteristics. Pain 1990 Jun; 41: 273–81

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. McCarberg BH. The treatment of breakthrough pain. Pain Med 2007 Jan-Feb; 8(S1): S8–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Actiq® package insert. Salt Lake City (UT): Cephalon Inc., 2007

  5. Fentora® package insert. Salt Lake City (UT): Cephalon Inc., 2007

  6. Streisand JB, Varvel JR, Stanski DR, et al. Absorption and bioavailability of oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate. Anesthesiology 1991 Aug; 75(2): 223–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Chandler S. Oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate: a new treatment for breakthrough pain. Am J Hosp Palliat Care 1999 Mar-Apr; 16(2): 489–91

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Gordon D, Schroeder M. Oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate-OTFC (ACTIQ) #103. J Palliat Med 2008 May; 11(4): 633–4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mystakidou K, Katsouda E, Parpa E, et al. Oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate for the treatment of breakthrough pain in cancer patients: an overview of its pharmacological and clinical characteristics. J Opioid Manag 2005 Mar-Apr; 1(1): 36–40

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Darwish M, Kirby M, Robertson Jr P, et al. Comparison of equivalent doses of fentanyl buccal tablets and arteriovenous differences in fentanyl pharmacokinetics. Clin Pharmacokinet 2006; 45(8): 843–50

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Streisand JB, Zhang J, Niu S, et al. Buccal absorption of fentanyl is pH-dependent in dogs. Anesthesiology 1995 Mar; 82(3): 759–64

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Durfee S, Messina J, Khankari R. Fentanyl effervescent buccal tablets: enhanced buccal absorption. Am J Drug Deliv 2006; 4: 1–5

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Metropolitan height and weight tables. New York (NY): Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 1999

  14. Foodand Drug Administration, Guidance for industry: bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for orally administered drug products: general considerations. 2003 Mar [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/down loads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatory Information/ Guidances/ucm070124.pdf [Accessed 2009 Aug 1]

  15. Bennett D, Burton AW, Fishman S, et al. Consensus panel recommendations for the assessment and management of breakthrough pain: part I. Assessment. P&T 2005 May; 30(5): 296–301

    Google Scholar 

  16. Payne R. Recognition and diagnosis of breakthrough pain. Pain Med 2007 Jan-Feb; 8Suppl. 1: S3–7

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Davies AN. Cancer-related breakthrough pain. Br J Hosp Med (Lond) 2006 Aug; 67(8): 414–6

    Google Scholar 

  18. Mercadante S, Radbruch L, Caraceni A, et al. Episodic (breakthrough) pain: consensus conference of an expert working group of the European Association for Palliative Care. Cancer 2002 Feb 1; 94(3): 832–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Farrar JT, Cleary J, Rauck R, et al. Oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial for the treatment of breakthrough pain in cancer subjects. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998 Apr; 90(8): 611–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Portenoy RK, Payne R, Coluzzi P, et al. Oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC) for the treatment of breakthrough pain in cancer patients: a controlled dose titration study. Pain 1999 Feb; 79(2-3): 303–12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Hanks GW, Nugent M, Higgs CM, et al. OTFC Multicentre Study Group. Oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate in the management of breakthrough pain in cancer: an open, multicentre, dose-titration and long-term use study. Palliat Med 2004 Dec; 18(8): 698–704

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Portenoy RK, Taylor D, Messina J, et al. A randomized, placebo-controlled study of fentanyl buccal tablet for breakthrough pain in opioid-treated patients with cancer. Clin J Pain 2006 Nov-Dec; 22(9): 805–11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Slatkin NE, Xie F, Messina J, et al. Fentanyl buccal tablet for relief of breakthrough pain in opioid-tolerant patients with cancer-related chronic pain. J Support Oncol 2007 Jul-Aug; 5(7): 327–34

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Darwish M, Kirby M, Robertson Jr P, et al. Absolute and relative bioavailability of fentanyl buccal tablet and oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate. J Clin Pharmacol 2007 Mar; 47(3): 343–50

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Coluzzi PH, Schwartzberg L, Conroy JD, et al. Breakthrough cancer pain: a randomized trial comparing oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC) and morphine sulfate immediate release (MSIR). Pain 2001 Mar; 91: 123–30

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding for the design and conduct of this study, and for the collection, management and analysis of the resulting data, was provided by BioDelivery Sciences International. Funding for the preparation of the manuscript was provided by Meda Pharmaceuticals. Drs Vasisht and Finn are employees and shareholders of BioDelivery Sciences International. Drs Gever and Tagarro are employees of Meda Pharmaceuticals.

The authors would like to thank Lew Fredane (Meda Pharmaceuticals), Bill Wheeler (Meda Pharmaceuticals) and Bill Wargin (PK-PM Associates, LLC) for their assistance with and input into this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., 801 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 210, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27607, USA

    Niraj Vasisht &  Andrew L. Finn

  2. Meda Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Somerset, New Jersey, USA

    Larry N. Gever

  3. Meda Pharmaceuticals, Madrid, Spain

    Ignacio Tagarro

Authors
  1. Niraj Vasisht
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Larry N. Gever
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ignacio Tagarro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andrew L. Finn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew L. Finn.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vasisht, N., Gever, L.N., Tagarro, I. et al. Formulation Selection and Pharmacokinetic Comparison of Fentanyl Buccal Soluble Film with Oral Transmucosal Fentanyl Citrate. Clin. Drug Investig. 29, 647–654 (2009). https://doi.org/10.2165/11315300-000000000-00000

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11315300-000000000-00000

Keywords

Search

Navigation