2001
DOI: 10.1016/s0168-3659(01)00358-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An in vivo/in vitro comparison with a leuprolide osmotic implant for the treatment of prostate cancer

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
58
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 74 publications
(59 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
1
58
0
Order By: Relevance
“…16 Preferred rate modifying agents are dimethyl citrate, triethyl citrate, ethyl heptanoate, [17][18][19] glycerin, and hexanediol. 20 These substances are biocompatible and approved by FDA.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…16 Preferred rate modifying agents are dimethyl citrate, triethyl citrate, ethyl heptanoate, [17][18][19] glycerin, and hexanediol. 20 These substances are biocompatible and approved by FDA.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Remarkably, the fluctuation of plasma concentration for this osmotic pump subcutaneous infusion system was significantly smaller, compared with intravenous injection, which were similar to osmotic micropump or subcutaneous infusion (Mikkelsen Lynch et al, 2000;Fisher et al, 2003;Herrmanna et al, 2009). Steady drug serum levels produced by this delivery device would result in the desired pharmacodynamic efficacy and mild adverse effects (Mikkelsen Lynch et al, 2000;Wright et al, 2001). The AUC (0-12) for subcutaneous infusion was essentially equal to that for intravenous injection (46.11 AE 0.59 mgÁh/mL for intravenous injection and 42.98 AE 2.09 mgÁh/mL for subcutaneous infusion).…”
Section: In Vivo Studymentioning
confidence: 85%
“…The fluctuation of plasma concentration for the developed pump was similar to the reference commercial pump. Steady drug plasma levels produced by this delivery device would result in the desired pharmacodynamic efficacy and mild adverse effects (Wright et al, 2001). The AUC (0-t) of developed pump and reference one was 111.60 ± 18.65 and 104.72 ± 16.49 mgÁh/mL, respectively.…”
Section: In Vivo Studymentioning
confidence: 97%