Tropical Journal of Pharmaceutical Research

Original Research Article | OPEN ACCESS

Comparative bioavailability study of a new quinine suppository and oral quinine in healthy volunteers

Chinedum P Babalola¹ , A S Adebayo², A . Omotoso¹, Olubukola . Ayinde¹

¹Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Ibadan, Nigeria; ²Drug Research and Development Unit (DRPU), Faculty of Pharmacy, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria.

For correspondence:- Chinedum Babalola Email: peacebab2001@yahoo.com Tel:0805-522 -4989

Published: 15 June 2004

Citation: Babalola CP, Adebayo AS, Omotoso A., Ayinde O.. Comparative bioavailability study of a new quinine suppository and oral quinine in healthy volunteers. Trop J Pharm Res 2004; 3(1):291-297 doi: 10.4314/tjpr.v3i1.5

© 2004 The authors.
This is an Open Access article that uses a funding model which does not charge readers or their institutions for access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0) and the Budapest Open Access Initiative (http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read), which permit unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited..

Abstract

Purpose:There is the need for alternative and more convenient route of quinine (QN) administration in complicated and severe malaria. The purpose of this study is to compare the bioavailability (BA) of a new quinine suppository made from theobroma oil to that of an existing tablet formulation in healthy volunteers.
Methods:Six healthy volunteers were administered with 300 mg of QN sulphate as suppository and tablet in a crossover manner. QN concentrations in both plasma and urine at predetermined time points were determined spectrofluorimetrically.
Results:Absorption was slower, more variable and lower with the suppository than with the tablet. The time of maximum concentration (Tmax), maximum concentration (Cmax), area under the curve (AUC) and cumulative urinary excretion (Du ∞ ) for the two formulations were also significantly different, with no changes in elimination half-life (t1/2). The respective Cmaxand AUC values were 4 to 5 times higher with the tablet (2.32 ±0.22 µg/ml, 36.31 ±10.06 µg.h/ml) than with the suppository (0.52 ±0.37 µg/ml, 7.69 ±5.79 µg.h/ml). The Du ∞ were 9.17 ±1.11 mg and 2.56 ±0.55 mg for the tablet and suppository respectively. The relative BA of the suppository was 21.24 ±16.00 % (95 % C. I., 8.44 – 34.04%) from plasma levels and 26.14 ±7.80 % (95 C.I., 19.90 – 32.38 %) from urine excretion.
Conclusion: Absorption of this new QN suppository is poor; therefore it may not be therapeutically expedient to substitute it for the tablet form at the same dose. Improving the suppository formulation or increasing the dose in order to increase its BA may be necessary.

Keywords: Quinine, suppository, bioavailability.