The Pharmacokineties of Alfentanil in Healthy Cats

Metabolism and pharmacokinetics of pharmaceuticals in cats (Felix sylvestris catus) and implications for the risk assessment of feed additives and contaminants

In animal health risk assessment, hazard characterisation of feed additives has been often using the default uncertainty factor (UF) of 100 to translate a no-observed-adverse-effect level in test species (rat, mouse, dog, rabbit) to a 'safe' level of chronic exposure in farm and companion animal species. Historically, both 10-fold factors have been further divided to include chemical-specific data in both dimensions when available. For cats (Felis Sylvestris catus), an extra default UF of 5 is applied due to the species' deficiency in particularly glucuronidation and glycine conjugation. This paper aims to assess the scientific basis and validity of the UF for inter-species differences in kinetics (4.0) and the extra UF applied for cats through a comparison of kinetic parameters between rats and cats for 30 substrates of phase I and phase II metabolism. When the parent compound undergoes glucuronidation the default factor of 4.0 is exceeded, with exceptions for zidovudine and S-carprofen. Compounds that were mainly renally excreted did not exceed the 4.0-fold default. Mixed results were obtained for chemicals which are metabolised by CYP3A in rats. When chemicals were administered intravenously the 4.0-fold default was not exceeded with the exception of clomipramine, lidocaine and alfentanil. The differences seen after oral administration might be due to differences in first-pass metabolism and bioavailability. Further work is needed to further characterise phase I, phase II enzymes and transporters in cats to support the development of databases and in silico models to support hazard characterisation of chemicals particularly for feed additives.

A Clinical Comparison of Remifentanil or Alfentanil in Propofol-Anesthetized Cats Undergoing Ovariohysterectomy

Sixteen cats were used to compare the cardiovascular and anesthetic effects of remifentanil (REMI) or alfentanil (ALF) in propofol-anesthetized cats undergoing ovariohysterectomy. After premedication with acepromazine, anesthesia was induced and maintained with a constant rate infusion of propofol (0.3 mg/kg/min). REMI or ALF infusions were administered simultaneously with propofol. Heart rate (HR), systolic arterial pressure (SAP), pulse oximetry (SpO2), rectal temperature (RT), and response to surgical stimulation were recorded at predefined time points during anesthesia. Data [mean ± standard deviation (SD)] were analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures followed by a Dunnett's test and Student t-test ( P < 0.05). SAP was significantly lower in ALF group than in REMI group. Extubation time was significantly shorter in REMI than in ALF group. Overall infusion rate of REMI and ALF was 0.24 ± 0.05 mg/kg/min and 0.97 ± 0.22 mg/kg/min, respectively. The combination of propofol and REMI or ALF provided satisfactory anesthesia in cats undergoing ovariohysterectomy.

Practical use of opioids in cats: a state-of-the-art, evidence-based review

Rationale

Recent recognition of the need to improve pain management in cats has led to the investigation of the pharmacokinetics and efficacy of opioid analgesic drugs in this species. The results of these studies may be difficult to interpret because the effect of these drugs varies with dose, route of administration and the method used to assess them. As equipotency of different opioids is not known, it is hard to compare their effects. Animals do not verbalise the pain they feel and, in cats, it may be more difficult to recognise signs of pain in comparison with other species such as dogs.

Aim

This article reviews the use of opioid analgesics in cats. It must be remembered that not all drugs are licensed for use in cats, and that marketing authorisations vary between different countries.

Morphine, pethidine and buprenorphine disposition in the cat

Pharmacokinetics of morphine, buprenorphine and pethidine were determined in 10 cats. Six cats received morphine (0.2 mg/kg) intravenously and four intramuscularly. Five received buprenorphine (0.01 mg/kg) intravenously and six intramuscularly. Six received pethidine (5 mg/kg) intramuscularly. Jugular venous blood samples were collected at time points to 24 h, and plasma morphine concentrations were measured by high performance liquid chromatograpy (HPLC), buprenorphine by radioimmunoassay (RIA) and pethidine by gas chromatography. Our data for morphine show elimination half-life (t1/2el) 76.3 min intravenous (i.v.) and 93.6 min intramuscular (i.m.); mean residence time (MRT) 105.0 and 120.5 min; clearance (Clp) 24.1 and 13.9 mL/kg/min; and volume of distribution (V(dss)) 2.6 and 1.7 L/kg, respectively. Comparable data for buprenorphine are t1/2el 416.8 and 380.2 min; MRT 417.6 and 409.8 min; Clp 16.7 and 23.7 mL/kg/min; and V(dss) 7.1 and 8.9 L/kg. For i.m. pethidine, t1/2el 216.4 min; MRT 307.5 min; Clp 20.8 mL/kg/min and V(dss) 5.2 L/kg. For i.m. dosing, the tmax for morphine, buprenorphine and pethidine were 15, 3 and 10 min, respectively. The pharmacokinetics of the three opioids in cats are broadly comparable with those of the dog, although there is a suggestion that the cat may clear morphine more slowly.