4.4 Article

The Effect of Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Surgery in Morbidly Obese Patients on Pharmacokinetics of (Acetyl)Salicylic Acid and Omeprazole: the ERY-PAO Study

期刊

OBESITY SURGERY
卷 26, 期 9, 页码 2051-2058

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11695-016-2065-8

关键词

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass; Drug absorption; Acetylsalicylic acid (Aspirin); Omeprazole

类别

资金

  1. Central Hospital Pharmacy, The Hague
  2. Medical Centre Haaglanden, The Hague
  3. Dutch Obesity Clinic West, The Hague

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Data on the absorption of orally administered drugs following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery in obese patients are limited and inconclusive. As it is difficult to predict changes in absorption, studies on frequently used drugs in this population are necessary. Acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) and omeprazole are two commonly prescribed drugs in obese patients. In this repeated measures study, omeprazole and salicylic acid (SA) serum concentrations were measured before and after RYGB in 34 morbidly obese subjects. Time to maximum concentration (Tmax), lag time (Tlag), maximum concentration (Cmax), and area under the serum concentration versus time curve (AUC) were calculated for both drugs to determine possible differences in drug absorption after the procedure. For SA, Tmax significantly decreased after RYGB, while both Cmax and AUC(0-24) significantly increased. For omeprazole, both Tmax and Tlag significantly decreased after RYGB, while Cmax significantly increased. Mean AUC(0-12) significantly decreased post-surgery. The difference in AUC(0-12) before and after surgery varied between subjects. Our study shows a faster absorption of both ASA and omeprazole after RYGB. The exposure to ASA is higher post-surgery, but the standard dose of 80 mg does not need to be modified, considering its range in effective dose. The exposure to omeprazole is, on average, decreased after surgery. Clinicians should be aware to increase the dose of omeprazole if symptoms suggest inadequate response.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据