Pharmacokinetic Profile of Liposome-Encapsulated Ropivacaine after Maxillary Infiltration Anaesthesia

The aim of this study was to determine the pharmacokinetic parameters of liposomal ropivacaine after dental anesthesia in 14 healthy volunteers. In this randomized, double-blind and crossover study, the volunteers received maxillary infiltration of liposome-encapsulated 0.5% ropivacaine and, 0.5% ropivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine in two different sessions. Blood samples were collected before and after (from 15 to 1440 min) the administration of either ropivacaine formulation. HPLC with UV detection was used to quantify plasma ropivacaine concentrations. The pharmacokinetic parameters AUC(0-24) (area under the plasma concentration x time curve from baseline to 24 h), AUC(0-infinity) (area under the plasma concentration-time curve from baseline to infinity), C-max (maximum drug concentration), CL (renal clearance), T-max (maximum drug concentration time), t(1/2) (elimination half-life) and Vd (volume of distribution) were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. No differences (p > 0.05) were observed between both formulations for any of the pharmacokinetic parameters evaluated and plasma ropivacaine concentrations, considering each period of time. Both formulations showed similar pharmacokinetic profiles, indicating that the liposomal formulation could be a safer option for use of this local anesthetic, due to the absence of a vasoconstrictor.

Stability and Local Toxicity Evaluation of a Liposomal Prilocaine Formulation

This study reports a physicochemical stability evaluation of a previously reported liposomal prilocaine (PLC(LUV)) formulation (Cereda el al. J. Pharm. Pharmaceut. Sci. 7:235, 2004) before and after steam sterilization as well as its local toxicity evaluation. Prilocaine (PLC) was encapsulated into extruded unilamellar liposomes (LUVs) composed by egg phosphatidylcholine:cholesterol:alfa-tocopherol (4:3:0.07, mole %). Laser light-scattering analysis (p > 0.05) and thiobarbituric acid reaction (p > 0.05) were used to evaluate the liposomes physical (size) and chemical (oxidation) stability, respectively. The prilocaine chemical stability was followed by (1)H-nuclear magnetic resonance. These tests detected no differences on the physicochemical stability of PLC or PLCLUV, sterilized or not, up to 30 days after preparation (p > 0.05). Finally, the paw edema test and histological analysis of rat oral mucosa were used to assess the possible inflammatory effects of PLC(LUV). PLC(LUV) did not evoke rat paw edema (p > 0.05), and no significant differences were found in histological analysis, when compared to the control groups (p > 0.05). The present work shows that PLC(LUV) is stable for a 30-day period and did not induce significant inflammatory effects both in the paw edema test and in histological analysis, giving supporting evidence for its safely and possible clinical use in dentistry.