Pharmacokinetics comparison of vardenafil as administered by an intranasal spray formulation vs a 10-mg oral tablet

Abstract

Abstract Background Oral vardenafil (VDF) tablet is an effective treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED), but intranasal administration with a suitable formulation can lead to a faster onset of action and offer more convenient planning for ED treatment. Aim The primary purpose of the present pilot clinical study was to determine whether intranasal VDF with an alcohol-based formulation can result in more “user-friendly pharmacokinetics” as compared with oral tablet administration. Methods This single-dose randomized crossover study was conducted in 12 healthy young volunteers receiving VDF as a 10-mg oral tablet or 3.38-mg intranasal spray. Multiple blood concentrations were obtained, and VDF concentrations were determined with a liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry assay. Pharmacokinetic parameters following each treatment were compared and adverse events assessed. Outcomes Pharmacokinetic parameters were obtained: apparent elimination rate constant, elimination half-life, peak concentration, peak time, total area under the curve, and relative bioavailability. Results Although mean apparent elimination rate constant, elimination half-life, peak concentration, and total area under the curve were similar between intranasal and oral administration, the median peak time from intranasal was much shorter (10 vs 58 minutes, P < .001, Mann-Whitney U test). The variability of the pharmacokinetic parameters was also less with intranasal than oral administration. The relative bioavailability of intranasal to oral was 1.67. Intranasal VDF caused transient but tolerable local nasal reactions in 50% of subjects. Other adverse events (eg, headache) were similar between the treatments. The incidence of adverse events was, however, significantly less in the second treatment after initial exposure to VDF. No serious adverse events were noted. Clinical Implications Intranasal VDF potentially offers a more timely and lower dose for the treatment of ED in patients who can tolerate the transient local adverse reactions. Strengths and Limitations The strength of this study is its randomized crossover design. Because the study was conducted in 12 healthy young subjects, the results may not reflect those observed in elderly patients who may be likely taking VDF for ED. Nevertheless, the changes of pharmacokinetic parameters in the present study are likely a reflection of the differences between intranasal and oral administration of the formulations. Conclusion Our study indicated that the present VDF formulation, when administered intranasally, can achieve a more rapid but similar plasma concentration with only about one-third dose when compared with the oral administration.