To the Editor:

The editorial by Henthorn and Olofsen in the February 2019 issue of Anesthesiology1  provides a wonderful discussion on the importance of measuring biophase drug concentrations when conducting pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic studies. The editorial addressed an important study that examined the relationship between modeled, non–steady-state concentrations of remifentanil and respiratory depression in adults with moderate-to-severe obstructive sleep apnea.2  That study, owing to practice constraints, used a modeling approach, rather than measured remifentanil concentrations. Henthorn and Olofsen term that “economized pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic.” In their assessment of three different approaches to modeling techniques, Henthorn and Olofsen conclude that model-predicted concentrations are not as useful as measured drug concentrations. They suggest that caution is warranted in “drawing conclusions in the language of pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamics when there are no drug concentration (pharmacokinetic) data and when there is non–steady-state effect data and either the onset of effect or offset of effect is missing.”

We recently reported the effects of remifentanil in pediatric patients with moderate-to-severe obstructive sleep apnea, also using a fixed-rate infusion.3  Venous remifentanil concentrations were measured 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, and 15 min after starting the infusion. Projected arterial remifentanil concentrations were also calculated, using Rugloop II (DeMed, Belgium) and the Minto model with dose, sex, height, age, and weight.4  Measured and simulated remifentanil plasma concentrations over time are shown in figure 1. Measured remifentanil concentrations had considerable variance from the predicted concentrations, and substantial interindividual variability. While it is expected that arterial and venous concentrations would differ (arterial higher), particularly at non–steady-state and early in an infusion, venous measured concentrations were higher than arterial predicted concentrations, and much more variable.

Fig. 1.

Simulated arterial and measured venous plasma remifentanil concentrations.

Fig. 1.

Simulated arterial and measured venous plasma remifentanil concentrations.

Interindividual variability can lead to several-fold differences in predicted versus measured plasma drug concentrations, especially for short duration, non–steady-state infusions.5,6  In addition, for remifentanil, the optimal model for predictions may yet be uncertain.7  The relevant consideration is that discordance between modeled versus measured remifentanil (or any drug) concentrations illustrates the importance of measuring actual drug concentrations when performing pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic studies, lest pharmacokinetic differences be misattributed as pharmacodynamic effect.8  I wish to thank Drs. Henthorn and Olofsen for bringing attention to these important considerations.

Research Support

Supported by a Faculty Development Award from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America Foundation (Washington, DC) and the Department of Anesthesiology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri.

Competing Interests

The author declares no competing interests.

References

1.
Henthorn
TK
,
Olofsen
E
:
Where’s the beef? How much can we skimp on pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic data?
Anesthesiology
2019
;
130
:
186
8
2.
Doufas
AG
,
Shafer
SL
,
Rashid
NHA
,
Kushida
CA
,
Capasso
R
:
Non-steady state modeling of the ventilatory depressant effect of remifentanil in awake patients experiencing moderate-to-severe obstructive sleep apnea.
Anesthesiology
2019
;
130
:
213
26
3.
Montana
MC
,
Juriga
L
,
Sharma
A
,
Kharasch
ED
:
Opioid sensitivity in children with and without obstructive sleep apnea.
Anesthesiology
2019
;
130
:
936
45
4.
Minto
CF
,
Schnider
TW
,
Egan
TD
,
Youngs
E
,
Lemmens
HJ
,
Gambus
PL
,
Billard
V
,
Hoke
JF
,
Moore
KH
,
Hermann
DJ
,
Muir
KT
,
Mandema
JW
,
Shafer
SL
:
Influence of age and gender on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of remifentanil. I. Model development.
Anesthesiology
1997
;
86
:
10
23
5.
Struys
MM
,
Coppens
MJ
,
De Neve
N
,
Mortier
EP
,
Doufas
AG
,
Van Bocxlaer
JF
,
Shafer
SL
:
Influence of administration rate on propofol plasma-effect site equilibration.
Anesthesiology
2007
;
107
:
386
96
6.
Fisher
DM
:
Take it to the limit (one more time).
Anesthesiology
2007
;
107
:
367
8
7.
Eleveld
DJ
,
Proost
JH
,
Vereecke
H
,
Absalom
AR
,
Olofsen
E
,
Vuyk
J
,
Struys
MMRF
:
An allometric model of remifentanil pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics.
Anesthesiology
2017
;
126
:
1005
18
8.
Avram
MJ
:
In reply: Presenting data versus predictions as basic scientific information: Target-controlled infusions versus microgram per kilogram per minutes.
Anesthesiology
2011
;
114
:
723; author reply 7213