Pharmacy World and Science

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 26–29 | Cite as

Rectal administration of paracetamol: a comparison of a solution and suppositories in adult volunteers

  • W. J. Kollöffel
  • F. G. W. H. M. Driessen
  • P. B. Goldhoorn


The pharmacokinetics and tolerability of two dosage forms for rectal administration of paracetamol were compared. A fatty suppository was compared with a solution of 60 mg/ml paracetamol. Both dosage forms were given as 1000 mg doses to 10 healthy adult volunteers. The solution produced peak plasma concentrations significantly faster (tmax) than did the suppository. The peak concentration (Cmax) and the area under the curve (AUC6) were also significantly greater. The pharmacokinetic characteristics of the solution were superior to those of the suppository. No difference in irritation score was identified and no discomfort was reported.


Administration, rectal Biological availability Biological equivalence Chromatography, high pressure liquid Paracetamol Pharmacokinetics Solutions Suppositories 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Centraal Begeleidingsorgaan voor de Intercollegiale Toetsing (CBO). Preventie en behandeling van acute pijn bij kinderen [Prevention and treatment of acute pain in children]. Utrecht: CBO, 1993.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Moolenaar F, Schoonen AJM, Everts A, Huizinga T. Biopharmaceutics of rectal administration of drugs in man 4. Pharm Weekbl Sci 1979;1:89–94.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vromans H, Moolenaar F. Effect of solvents on rectal absorption rate of paracetamol in man: an in vitro approach. Int J Pharmaceutics 1985;26:5–13.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Moolenaar F, Olthof L, Huizinga T. Biopharmaceutics of rectal administration of drugs in man 3. Pharm Weekbl Sci 1979;1:25–30.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    van de Vaart FJ. Richtlijnen voor analytische validatie [Guidelines for analytical validation]. Pharm Weekbl 1992;127(46):1229–35.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shah VP, Midha KK, Dighe J, McGilveray IJ, Skelly JP, Yacobi A, et al. Analytical methods validation: bioavailability, bioequivalence and pharmacokinetic studies. J Pharm Sci 1992;81:309–12.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Proost JH, Meijer DKF. MW/PHARM, an integrated software package for drug dosage regimen calculation and therapeutic drug monitoring. Comput Biol Med 1992;22:155–63.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Proost JH. Critical evaluation of the determination of bioavailability by numerical deconvolution [dissertation]. Groningen: University of Groningen, 1987.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Locke CS. An exact confidence interval from untransformed data for the ratio of two formulation means.J Pharmacokinet 1984;12(6):649–55.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shangraw RF, Walkling WD. Effect of vehicle dielectric properties on rectal absorption of acetaminophen. J Pharm Sci 1971;60(4):600–2.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moolenaar F, Bakker S, Visser J, Huizinga T. Biopharmaceutics of rectal administration of drugs in man IX. Int J Pharm 1980;5:127–37.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Reynolds JEF, editor. Martindale, the extra pharmacopoeia. 30th ed. London: The Pharmaceutical Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    American Pharmaceutical Association & The Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. Handbook of pharmaceutical excipients. London: The Pharmaceutical Press, England, 1986: 241–2.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. J. Kollöffel
    • 1
  • F. G. W. H. M. Driessen
    • 2
  • P. B. Goldhoorn
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Clinical PharmacyTwenteborg HospitalAlmeloThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of AnaesthesiologyTwenteborg Hospitalthe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Clinical PharmacyTwenteborg Hospitalthe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations