Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Mar 3;16(3):e0247546. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247546

Pharmacokinetic profile of injectable tramadol in the koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) and prediction of its analgesic efficacy

Benjamin Kimble 1,#, Larry Vogelnest 2,#, Peter Valtchev 3,#, Merran Govendir 1,*,#
Editor: Thomas PC Dorlo4
PMCID: PMC7928481  PMID: 33657107

Abstract

Tramadol is used as an analgesic in humans and some animal species. When tramadol is administered to most species it undergoes metabolism to its main metabolites M1 or O-desmethyltramadol, and M2 or N-desmethyltramadol, and many other metabolites. This study describes the pharmacokinetic profile of tramadol when a single subcutaneous bolus of 2 mg/kg was initially administered to two koalas. Based on the results of these two koalas, subsequently 4 mg/kg as a single subcutaneous injection, was administered to an additional four koalas. M1 is recognised as an active metabolite and has greater analgesic activity than tramadol, while M2 is considered inactive. A liquid chromatography assay to quantify tramadol, M1 and M2 in koala plasma was developed and validated. Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry confirmed that M1 had been identified. Additionally, the metabolite didesmethyltramadol was identified in chromatograms of two of the male koalas. When 4 mg/kg tramadol was administered, the median half-life of tramadol and M1 were 2.89 h and 24.69 h, respectively. The M1 plasma concentration remained well above the minimally effective M1 plasma concentration in humans (approximately 36 ng/mL) over 12 hours. The M1 plasma concentration, when tramadol was administered at 2 mg/kg, did not exceed 36 ng/mL at any time-point. When tramadol was administered at 2 mg/kg and 4 mg/kg the area under the curve M1: tramadol ratios were 0.33 and 0.50, respectively. Tramadol and M1 binding to plasma protein were determined using thawed, frozen koala plasma and the mean binding was 20% and 75%, respectively. It is concluded that when tramadol is administered at 4 mg/kg as a subcutaneous injection to the koala, it is predicted to have some analgesic activity.

Introduction

Wild koalas may be injured by car strikes, bushfires or animal attacks and are susceptible to infectious diseases such as Chlamydiosis, all potentially requiring analgesia to improve the quality of patient recuperation and survival. The only published pharmacokinetic (PK) profile for any analgesic in the koala has been for the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) meloxicam which has a short elimination half-life of 1.19 hour (hr) (range 0.71 to 1.62 hr) [1, 2], compared with 24 hr in dogs [3] and approximately 13 hr in humans [4]. Therefore, in contrast to many other species, meloxicam would require frequent dosing during a 24 h period for koalas which is problematic for a wild, non-domesticated species. There is therefore a need to identify analgesics that are not only efficacious, but also have a longer duration of analgesia to minimise animal handling.

Tramadol is a centrally acting analgesic used in some species to control moderate to moderately severe pain [5]. In Australia, tramadol is scheduled by the therapeutic goods regulator as a Prescription Only Medicine. Its mechanism of action is mediated through interactions with opioid, adrenergic, and serotonin receptors [6, 7]. A significant portion of tramadol’s analgesic properties are reported to be derived from the actions of its main metabolite O-desmethyltramadol (O-DSMT, also referred to as ‘metabolite 1’ [M1]). M1 is reported to have 300 times greater affinity for the mu (μ) opioid receptors than tramadol [8, 9]. Many other metabolites have also been identified, the number of which, varies with species [8, 10]. Another frequently recognized metabolite is N-desmethyltramadol [M2] which is considered inactive [8, 10]. An illustration summarising tramadol’s and its major metabolites’ metabolism in the human hepatocyte is found at https://www.pharmgkb.org/pathway/PA165946349 [11]

Tramadol is likely to be used more frequently as an analgesic for cats, than dogs, due to a greater conversion of tramadol to M1 (M1: tramadol area under the curve [AUC] ratio is 1–1.2 in the cat) [5]. There is a lower ratio in humans—0.25 [12] and in dogs—0.003 [10]. Due to the necessity to find analgesics that are efficacious for koalas and that tramadol has been used anecdotally in this species [13], the aim of this study was to describe the PK profile of tramadol when injected as a single subcutaneous injection and to predict likely efficacy.

Materials and methods

Animals

Six, mature, clinically normal koalas (3 males, 3 females) with body weights from 6.8 to 9.0 kg, (median 7.58 kg), were recruited from the Taronga Zoo colony (Mosman, NSW, Australia). These koalas were considered clinically normal based on regular physical examinations, and haematology and biochemical analyte values. During the study, koalas were housed singly and supplied with various Eucalyptus spp. foliage and water ad-libitum. The University of Sydney Animal Ethics committee approved this protocol (2015/877) as well as the Taronga Conservation Society of Australia, Animal Ethics Committee (protocol 3a/10/18).

Drug administration and blood collection

The koalas were anaesthetised with alfaxalone (Alfaxan, Jurox, Pty Ltd, Rutherford, NSW, Australia) at 3 mg/kg administered intramuscularly (i.m.) and maintained under anaesthesia on isoflurane in 100% oxygen via a face mask for placement of a 20 gauge, 1 ¼ inch intravenous catheter into the cephalic vein. A short T-connector extension set (Codan, Santa Ana, CA, USA) and cap was attached to the catheter and flushed with heparinised saline. The extension tube, cap and catheter were secured with tape and bandage, for serial blood collection [14]. Blood (5 mL) was collected at the time of anaesthesia in a lithium heparin tube to establish baseline haematology and biochemistry (designated t = 0 hr). Tramadol hydrochloride (Tramadol solution for injection, Sandoz Pty Ltd, Macquarie Park, NSW) was initially administered to two koalas (one of each sex) at a dose of 2.0 mg/kg as a single s.c. bolus. The 2.0 mg/kg injectable dose was initially selected because it is a suggested dose used in feline veterinary practice [15]. As many drugs such as chloramphenicol [16] enrofloxacin [17, 18] and meloxicam [1] have superior s.c. absorption compared to the oral route, the s.c. route was selected for this study. On review of the resulting tramadol and M1 plasma concentrations from 2 mg/kg tramadol administration, the Animal Ethics committees approved 4.0 mg/kg s.c. administration to a further four mature koalas (two of each sex).

To determine tramadol, M1 and M2 plasma concentrations, serial blood samples (up to 2 mL) were collected into lithium heparin tubes at t = 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 12 hr after drug administration. The cap, extension tube and catheter were flushed with heparinised saline before and after each collection. The first 0.5 mL of blood was discarded to avoid dilution of samples with heparinised saline. Samples were centrifuged within 1 hr of collection; the plasma was immediately stored at –80°C and protected from light until drug quantification.

Drug analysis method and sample processing

Chemicals

Tramadol hydrochloride, M1, phosphoric acid sodium hydroxide tert-butyl methyl ether and triethylamine were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (Castle Hill, NSW, Australia). M2 was purchased from MyBioSource Inc. (San Diego, CA, USA). High pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) grade methanol, acetonitrile and ethyl acetate were purchased from Thermo Fisher Scientific (Macquarie Park, NSW, Australia).

Drug analysis

Quantification of tramadol, M1 and M2 concentrations in plasma by HPLC with fluorescence detection was modified from a previously published method [19]. The components of system included a Shimadzu LC-20AT solvent delivery unit, DGU-20A degasser, a SIL-20A auto injector and a RF-10AXL fluorescence detector (Shimadzu, Rydalmere, NSW, Australia). Shimadzu LC solutions software (Kyoto, Japan) was used for chromatographic control, data collection and data processing. Chromatographic separation was performed with a Synergi 4 μm MAX-RP 80 A, 150 × 4.6mm (Phenomenex, Lane Cove, NSW, Australia) with a 1-mm Opti-guard C-18 pre-column (Choice Analytical, Thornleigh, NSW, Australia) at ambient temperature. The isocratic mobile phase consisted of 0.01 M phosphate buffer and acetonitrile (82.5:17.5, v/v), containing 0.1% triethylamine adjusted to pH 3, at a flow rate of 0.8 mL/min. Fluorescence detection excitation and emission wavelengths were 200 nm and 301 nm, respectively. Standard curve concentrations, ranging from 15.62 to 500 ng/mL, and quality control samples (QCs) (at concentrations of 15.63, 62.5 and 500 ng/mL) were prepared in blank pooled koala plasma collected from a minimum of three koalas. For sample preparation 200 μL of each of the following: plasma samples collected from koalas administered tramadol, standards prepared for the standard curves and the QC samples were mixed with 50 μL of 1 M sodium hydroxide and extracted twice with 800 μL of ethyl acetate / tert-butyl methyl ether (1:1, v/v). The extracted organic portion was dried under vacuum in a Speed Vac Concentrator (Thermo Scientific, MA, USA) at 30 °C for 1 h, reconstituted with 200 μL of mobile phase, and finally, 10 μL of the reconstituted sample was injected into the HPLC system. External standard curves were prepared individually for tramadol, M1 and M2 (all with r2 > 0.99) and a weighting factor (1/x) to ensure that the relative importance of observations in the regression, especially the larger ones, were not over‐fitted. After an extensive search, a suitable internal standard could not identified due to the tramadol, or metabolites’ peaks or plasma endogenous peaks [20] obscuring all potential internal standards. Therefore, an external standard was used that comprised of a known concentration of tramadol, M1 and M2 added to untreated pooled koala plasma. Based on the lowest concentration where the precision and accuracy were <15% and within 20% of nominal concentration, respectively, the lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) was calculated as 15.63 ng/mL for tramadol and its metabolites [21]. The accuracy, precision, and average drug recovery of the three QC samples, all performed in triplicate, are provided in S1 Table in S1 File.

LC-MS identification of M1

Although M1 had the same retention time as the analytical standard by liquid chromatography (LC), the structure of the M1 metabolite was confirmed with liquid chromatography—mass-spectrometry (LC–MS) with a system that consisted of a Shimadzu LC–MS 2010EV module (Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan) and a Phenomenex Gemini C18 5 μm (150 mm × 2 mm) column (Phenomenex, Lane Cove, NSW, Australia) attached to a 1 mm Opti-guard C-18 pre-column. The mobile phase consisted of water and acetonitrile (95: 5, v/v) with 0.1% formic acid. The flow rate was 0.4 mL/min. Detection was accomplished in electrospray ionization (ESI) ion source operated in positive ion mode with scanning range of 150–500 m/z in scan mode, with scan speed of 1000 amu/s, interface voltage mode of 2 kV, interface temperature at 200 °C, and flow rate of nitrogen as a nebulizing gas of 1.2 L/min. Retention time of protonated M1 standard was 1.45 min with a m/z of 250.0 as would be expected for M1. LC-MS was also used to analyse the structure of an additional metabolite at a retention time of 3.20 minutes with a molecular weight (MW) of 235.0 and was identified as didesmethyltramadol.

Pharmacokinetic analysis

Tramadol, M1 and M2 concentration versus time data underwent PK non-compartmental analysis. The peak concentration (Cmax) and the time this was reached (Tmax) was obtained directly from the measured concentrations. The terminal half-life (t1/2) was determined by ln 2/k where k is the elimination rate constant which is the inverse slope of the elimination or terminal part of the semi-log curve. The area under the concentration-time curve (AUC0-t last) was calculated to the last measurable concentration (t last) using the log-linear trapezoidal method. The AUC and AUMC from the last observed concentration to infinity were determined by

AUCt=Clast/kel
AUMCt=(Clast×tlast/kel)+(Clast/kel2)

The mean residence time (MRT), apparent clearance (Cl/F), apparent volume of distribution (V/F) were determined by the following equations:

MRT=AUMC0/AUC0
Cl/F=Dose/AUC0
V/F=CL/kel

F = bioavailability of the subcutaneous route, remained undetermined as there was no intravascular administration. PK Solver [22] was used to calculate some PK indices for the noncompartmental analysis.

Tramadol and metabolites’ binding to plasma proteins

The percentage of tramadol (at concentrations of 150 and 500 ng/mL) and its main metabolites (100 and 50 ng/mL for M1 and M2, respectively) bound to koala plasma proteins were determined using the ultrafiltration method [23] using a modified protocol [1]. Mixtures of tramadol and metabolites (500 ng/mL of tramadol and 100 ng/mL of both metabolites; or 150 ng/mL of tramadol and 50 ng/mL of both metabolites) were added to 1 mL of pooled blank koala plasma (n = 6), and adjusted to pH 7.4, were incubated in a water bath at 37 °C for 30 min. Then 200 μL of plasma was removed for determination of the total concentrations (Drug total) and the remaining plasma was transferred to the reservoir of the Centrifree ultrafiltration device (Merk Millipore, Macquarie Park, Australia) with a membrane MW cut-off of 30 kDa. The ultrafiltration device was centrifuged at 1,500 x g for 10 min at 37 °C. After centrifugation, the filtrate was used to determine the free concentrations (Drug free). Both fractions were analysed by HPLC as described above. All samples were analysed as duplicates. The percentage of substrate binding to plasma proteins was estimated as 100 - [(Drug free/Drug total) × 100]. The same concentrations of tramadol and metabolites were added to phosphate buffer saline and underwent ultrafiltration to determine non-specific binding for tramadol, M1 and M2 to the filtration membrane. The non-specific binding was < 0.5% for all substrates.

Statistical analysis

In order to assess any difference in Cmax or AUC0-t h when normalised for dose (2 mg/kg or 4 mg/kg tramadol administration); the Cmax / dose and AUC0-t / dose values for tramadol, M1 and M2 were compared by a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) using Graphpad Prism 9.0 (San Diego, CA). The level of significance (p) was < 0.05.

Results

Tramadol, M1 and M2 were detected at approximately 7.69, 3.17 and 8.19 min, respectively, as illustrated in Fig 1. Additionally, many unidentified metabolites were observed in those chromatograms (Fig 1C and 1D). An additional peak with a retention time of 3.20 min was detected in chromatograms in two of the male koalas only (Fig 1C). Using LC-MS, total ion mass (positive ion mode) of this peak was determined as didesmethyltramadol.

Fig 1. Chromatograms of tramadol and its metabolites in koala plasma.

Fig 1

A) blank koala plasma; B) blank plasma spiked with tramadol, M1, and M2 (all at a concentration of 62.5 ng/mL); C) male koala plasma 2h after 4 mg/kg tramadol administration; D) female koala plasma 2 h after 4 mg/kg tramadol administration. Additional unidentified metabolites can be seen in C and D.

The plasma concentrations of tramadol at each time point are provided in S2 Table in S1 File and presented in Fig 2. The plasma concentrations of tramadol and M1 plotted as semi-logarithmic (concentration plotted as log 10) graphs are presented as Figs 3 and 4, respectively. M1 and M2 could both be detected at the first time point i.e. 15 minutes after tramadol administration. M1 and M2 concentrations at each time point are provided in S3 and S4 Tables in S1 File, respectively. M1 and M2 had median maximal plasma concentrations (Cmax) of 88.82 (illustrated in Fig 4) and 132.76 ng/mL (due to reported inactivity of M2, it is not represented as a Fig). A summary of the PK indices of tramadol, M1 and M2, as determined by non-compartmental analysis, are presented in Tables 13, respectively. Binding to koala plasma proteins (average ± SD %), tramadol, M1, and M2 were 16.00 ± 3.98%, 75.20 ± 0.29%, and 31.29 ± 9.47%, respectively. For both dosages, there were no reported side effects other than the animals were slightly sedated over the first two to six hours, but resumed their normal demeanour, thereafter.

Fig 2. Median (with error) tramadol plasma concentrations vs. time curves when administered at 2 mg/kg, s.c. (n = 2) and 4 mg/kg, s.c. (n = 4).

Fig 2

Dotted line signifies suggested tramadol minimally effective plasma concentration in humans of 100 ng/mL [24]. The graph of the 4 mg/kg tramadol dose dips slightly below the 2 mg/kg tramadol dose–this may be due to individual variability between koalas.

Fig 3. Median (with error) semi-log tramadol plasma concentration versus time when administered at 2 mg/kg, s.c. (n = 2) and 4 mg/kg, s.c. (n = 4).

Fig 3

Dotted line signifies tramadol minimally effective plasma concentration of 100 ng/mL [24]. The graph of the 4 mg/kg tramadol dose dips slightly below the 2 mg/kg tramadol dose–this may be due to individual variability between koalas. The tramadol concentrations of the 4 mg/kg tramadol dose at not provided at 12 h as they are below the LLOQ = 15.63 ng/mL.

Fig 4. Median (with error) semi-log M1 plasma concentrations vs. time curves when administered at 2 mg/kg, s.c. (n = 2) and 4 mg/kg, s.c. (n = 4).

Fig 4

Dotted line signifies suggested M1 minimally effective plasma concentration in humans of 36 ng/mL [24].

Table 1. Pharmacokinetic indices of tramadol when administered at 2 mg/kg, and 4 mg/kg, both administered by s.c. injection.

Tramadol administered @ 2 mg/kg Tramadol administered @ 4 mg/kg Combined 2 & 4 mg/kg*
Indice Koala 1 (K1) (M) K2 (F) Median K3 (M) K4 (M) K5 (F) K6 (F) Median Median
Koala body weight (kg) 9.0 6.85 7.93 7.90 7.65 6.95 7.50 7.58 7.58
Tramadol dose (mg) 18.2 13.70 15.95 31.60 30.60 27.80 30.0 30.3
kel (1/h) 0.32 0.19 0.26 0.53 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.23 0.23
t1/2 (h) 2.16 3.58 2.87 1.31 3.53 3.39 2.39 2.89 2.89
Tmax (h) 0.25 0.5 0.375 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.38 0.38
Cmax (ng/mL) 387.81 503.74 445.78 707.85 843.13 784.89 728.85 756.87
Cmax / dose (ng/mL)/mg 21.31 36.77 27.95 22.40 27.55 28.23 24.30 24.98 p = 0.54a
AUC0-12h (ng/mL*h) 692.37 1407.24 1049.81 1066.38 1831.34 1507.24 2003.83 1669.29
AUC0-inf (ng/mL*h) 735.72 1504.19 1119.96 1092.63 1958.58 1586.52 2093.69 1772.55
AUC0-inf / dose (ng/mL*h)/mg 38.04 102.72 65.82 33.75 58.85 54.22 66.79 55.09 p = 0.50a
AUMC0-inf (ng/mL*h^2) 1929.46 5968.69 3949.08 2029.25 7412.53 5229.76 7491.21 6321.15
MRT (h) 2.62 3.97 3.30 1.86 3.78 3.30 3.58 3.44 3.44
Vz/F (L/kg) 8.49 6.86 7.68 6.90 10.41 12.32 6.58 8.66 7.70
Cl/F (L/kg/h) 2.72 1.33 2.025 3.66 2.04 2.52 1.91 2.28 2.28
Cl/F (mL/min/kg) 45.31 22.16 33.74 61.01 34.04 42.03 31.84 38.04 38.04

Abbreviations: kel = terminal rate constant; t1/2 = half-life [Data points used to calculate kel are bolded in S2 Table in S1 File]; Tmax time to reach maximal plasma concentration; Cmax = maximal plasma concentration; AUC0-12 h = area under the plasma concentration time curve form 0 hr to 12 hr after tramadol dosing; AUMC0-12 h = area under the moment curve for 12 h after tramadol dosing; MRT = mean residence time; Vz/F apparent volume of distribution, Cl/F = apparent clearance;

* only determined for indices that are not dose dependent.

a p value when tramadol 2 mg/kg dose vs 4 mg/dose values for this indice are compared by one-way ANOVA.

Table 3. Pharmacokinetic indices of M2 when tramadol was administered at 2 mg/kg, and 4 mg/kg, both administered by s.c. injection.

Tramadol administered @ 2 mg/kg Tramadol administered @ 4 mg/kg
Indice Koala 1 (K1) (M) K2 F Median K3 (M) K4 (M) K 5 (F) K 6 (F) Median
kel (1/h) 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.16 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.10
t1/2 (h) 8.42 8.00 8.21 4.37 8.23 7.93 6.93 7.43
Tmax (h) 4.00 4.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 4.00 1.50
Cmax (ng/mL) 50.36 75.39 62.88 99.47 162.35 126.05 143.47 132.76
Cmax/ tramadol dose (ng/mL)/mg 2.77 5.50 3.94 3.15 5.31 4.53 4.78 4.38
AUC0-12h (ng/mL*h) 470.93 687.51 579.22 651.00 1369.28 1041.88 1338.62 1190.25
AUC0-12h / tramadol dose (ng/mL*h)/mg 25.88 50.18 36.31 20.60 44.75 37.48 44.62 39.28

Abbreviations: kel = terminal rate constant; t1/2 = half-life life [Data points used to calculate kel are bolded in S4 Table in S1 File]; Tmax = time to reach maximal plasma concentration; Cmax = maximal plasma concentration; AUC0-12 h = area under the plasma concentration time curve from 0 hr to 12 hr after tramadol dosing. Tramadol total dose for each koala is provided in Table 1. p values when tramadol 2 mg/kg dose vs 4 mg/dose when M2 values compared by one way ANOVA: Cmax /dose–p = 0.81; AUC0-t/dose–p = 0.92.

Table 2. Pharmacokinetic indices of M1 when tramadol was administered at 2 mg/kg, and 4 mg/kg both administered by s.c. injection.

Tramadol administered @ 2 mg/kg Tramadol administered @ 4 mg/kg
Indice Koala 1 (K1) (M) K2 F Median K3 (M) K4 (M) K 5 (F) K 6 (F) Median
kel (1/h) 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.11 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03
t1/2 (h) 10.65 17.48 14.07 6.54 44.43 23.74 25.64 24.69
Tmax (h) 4.0 6.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 8.0 6.0 4.0
Cmax (ng/mL) 34.28 40.34 37.31 78.49 213.02 83.49 95.15 88.82
Cmax/ tramadol dose (ng/mL)/mg 1.88 2.94 2.34 2.48 6.96 3.00 3.17 2.93
AUC0-12h (ng/mL*h) 314.64 375.62 345.13 663.13 1335.17 799.08 882.90 840.99
AUC0-12h / tramadol dose (ng/mL*h)/mg 17.29 27.42 21.64 20.99 43.63 28.74 29.43 27.76
Median AUC M1: Median AUC tramadol 345.13: 1049.81 = 0.33 840.99: 1669.29 = 0.50

Abbreviations: kel = terminal rate constant; t1/2 = half-life life [Data points used to calculate kel are bolded in S3 Table in S1 File]; Tmax = time to reach maximal plasma concentration; Cmax = maximal plasma concentration; AUC0-12 h = area under the plasma concentration time curve from 0 hr to 12 hr after tramadol dosing. Tramadol total dose for each koala is provided in Table 1. p values when tramadol 2 mg/kg dose vs 4 mg/dose when M1 values compared by one way ANOVA: Cmax /dose–p = 0.54; AUC0-t/dose–p = 0.49.

There were no significant differences in the tramadol, M1 or M2 Cmax or AUC0-t when normalised for tramadol dose (2 mg/kg or 4 mg/kg administration).

Discussion

Tramadol has a complex PK profile which appears to be species specific. Tramadol generates many metabolites, the number of which varies between species [10]; its quantifiable metabolites each exist as enantiomers; and each enantiomer may have a different rate of elimination [19, 25]; and both fast and slow tramadol metabolisers may exist within a species [26]. Despite its inherent pharmacological complexity, tramadol is administered as an analgesic for koalas [13], and this is the first study to describe some aspects of tramadol’s PK profile in this species and provides valuable observations.

Initially, the more conservative dose of 2 mg/kg was administered, however at that dosage, the median maximal M1 plasma concentration (37.31 μg/mL) was similar to the minimal effective M1 plasma concentration in humans of approximately 36 ng/mL [10, 27, 28], as illustrated in Fig 4. Consequently, the 4 mg/kg s.c. dosage was administered to four koalas which resulted in the M1 plasma concentration exceeding 36 ng/mL for over 12 hours. One of the limitations of interpretation of the M1 data was that the last data point collected was at 12 h, indicating that at 12 h, M1 was in the early elimination phase in all koalas. Further plasma collection at time points beyond 12 h of tramadol administration would provide a more accurate determination of the M1 plasma profile. On the basis of the available data, M1 had a longer median half-life (2 mg/kg: 14.07 h; 4 mg/kg: 24.69 h) than tramadol (2 mg/kg: 2.87, 4 mg/kg: 2.89 h). M1’s half-life exceeding that of its parent is reported for other species: the human M1 half-life = 6 to 7 h, and tramadol half-life = 5 to 6 h [12]; the feline M1 half-life = approximately 4 h, and tramadol half-life = 2.5 h [5]; and the canine M1 half-life = 1.7 h, and tramadol half-life = 0.8 h [10, 29]. There were no statistical differences when the Cmax or AUC0-t for tramadol, M1 or M2 were normalised for tramadol dose, suggesting that tramadol, M1 and M2 demonstrate linear pharmacokinetics regardless of tramadol dose.

Tramadol, M1 and M2 binding to plasma protein was undertaken with thawed / frozen koala plasma which has limitations [30, 31]. Generally, tramadol’s binding to human plasma proteins is approximately 20% [12] and the bound fraction of M1 to human plasma proteins can be as high as 80% [25], similar to that observed with koala plasma proteins. In contrast, the mean percentage of tramadol and M1 binding to feline plasma proteins is reported as 15% and 17%, respectively [32].

Based on Tmax, s.c. tramadol absorption was rapid and comparable between koalas (median Tmax = 0.38) and humans (0.34 ± 0.31 h after 50 mg s.c. bolus) [33]. The mean [median] apparent volume of distribution of tramadol in koalas (8.60 ± 2.33 [7.70] L/kg) was of the same order of magnitude, but greater than that reported in other species (Table 4). Tramadol is reported to have high tissue affinity [10] and tramadol may have a high tissue affinity in the koala.

Table 4. Comparison of tramadol parameters and M1 half-life (mean ± SD [range]) between species.

Clearance mL/kg/min Volume of distribution L/kg Tramadol elimination half-life h M1 half-life (h)
Koala s.c. 39.40 ± 13.36t 8.60 ± 2.33t 2.65 ± 1.03* 25.09 ± 0.04*
[22.16–61.01] [6.58–12.32] [1.31–3.53]
Cats [5] 20.8 ± 3.2 [13.1–31.3] 5.1 ± 0.3 [4.5–6.4]** [Approx. 1–3] 4.5
Dogs [10] 54.63 ± 8.19 3.79 ± 0.93 1.80 ± 1.2 1.7
Horses [34] 26 ± 3 2.17 ± 3 1.37 ± 0.17
Humans [33] 7 to 8 2.7t 5.5 6–7

t apparent clearance or apparent volume of distribution;

* 4 mg/kg s.c. dosage;

**oral dosing

The mean [median] apparent clearance of tramadol itself, in koalas was 39.40 ± 13.36 [38.04] mL/min/kg, comparable to that in cats (20.8 ± 3.2) [5], dogs (54.63 ± 8.19) [10], and horses (26 ± 3) [34], but faster than in humans (7 to 8 mL/min/kg) [33]. A summary of tramadol parameters and M1 half-life available for some species are provided in Table 4.

In humans, tramadol is transformed by the highly polymorphic enzyme cytochrome P450 CYP2D, and to a lesser extent by CYP3A4, to M1 [11, 35]. Furthermore, in humans CYP2D is also involved in the further metabolism of M1 to M5, and M2 to M3 [11]. The activity of these enzymes, particularly CYP2D, can vary among individuals within a species [35, 36]. In humans, some individuals are ‘ultra-metabolisers’, ‘extensive’ or ‘poor’ tramadol metabolisers who produce high, intermediate or lower amounts of M1, respectively [36]. Due to the low numbers of subjects in this study, it is not possible to state whether there are ultra-, extensive, or poor tramadol metabolisers in koalas. However, koala ‘K3’ had a much faster elimination of tramadol, M1 and M2 compared to the others. K3 may have had very active metabolism by enzymes with ‘CYP2D6-like’ activity compared to the others.

Different tramadol metabolism rates have been associated with sex. In a recent study involving tramadol administration in dogs undergoing routine neutering the Cmax was greater and Tmax later, in male dogs [37]. In the chromatograms of two of the male koalas it appeared that M1 had two peaks (Fig 1C). This peak pattern was not seen in those of the other male koala (K4) or the females. The second peaks associated with M1 were identified by LC-MS as didesmethyltramadol. Further investigation with more koalas, of both sexes, is required to confirm that generation of this metabolite is associated with the animal’s sex.

Prediction of dose and analgesic efficacy

The minimum effective plasma concentration for tramadol in humans is somewhat variable depending on the study’s experimental design. Therefore some minimal effective analgesic concentrations of tramadol in humans range from 100 ng/mL [24], with a median of 287.7 ng/mL [28], to as high as 590 ± 410 ng/mL [27]. The results suggest that 2 mg/kg s.c. administered to koalas does not convincingly meet the effective human analgesic M1 plasma concentration (as demonstrated in Fig 4) but does, when administered at 4 mg/kg s.c. (Cmax > 94 ng/mL). Another marker of analgesic efficacy is reported the M1: tramadol AUC ratio [5, 10, 12]. This ratio in the cat is 1–1.2 [5], 0.25 in humans [12] and 0.003 in the dog [10]. The ratio calculated in this study, in the koala, was 0.50 when administered at 4 mg/kg s.c. and 0.33 when administered at 2 mg/kg s.c.

This study was a pharmacokinetic study and could not directly determine whether the 2 mg/kg or 4 mg/kg had an analgesic effect in the koalas recruited. The effective analgesia plasma concentration was extrapolated from that for humans to compare with the plasma concentrations in the koala. Studies supporting tramadol’s analgesic activity in non-human species are limited and are generally equivocal [3739]. It is possible that the tramadol / M1 effective plasma analgesic concentrations may differ across species. Tramadol has been trialed in koalas (5mg/kg via intravenous administration) with moderate to severe pain (cases of long bone fractures and soft tissue injury) without apparent analgesic effect [40]. However, the 4 mg/kg s.c. dosage administered twice daily, was used to treat many of the surviving koalas burnt in the Australian bush-fire season 2019 / 2020, and anecdotal reports suggest effective analgesia, as koalas were less likely to exhibit signs of pain (teeth grinding, ear flicking, tachypnoea, grunting, crying and sweaty palms [13]). One of the authors, uses this dose routinely to control pain in some injured Australian wildlife with apparent efficacy.

The analgesic efficacy of tramadol is conventionally determined to be attributable to the amount of M1 formed by the biotransformation of tramadol. However, tramadol is also recognised to provide some analgesia by inhibiting the re-uptake of noradrenaline and serotonin into the presynaptic neurons and activating the descending pain inhibition pathway [38]. The importance of stimulating this pathway to provide some analgesia in the koala is not known.

In humans it is generally considered that tramadol undergoes biotransformation to five metabolites [8, 9], however over 20 metabolites have been identified in dogs [38]. Numerous metabolite peaks were seen after tramadol administration in koalas’ chromatograms (Fig 1C and 1D). M1 and M2 were formally identified in the chromatograms from the treated koalas, as analytical standards for these metabolites are available. However, it is possible that one or more of the other metabolites may provide some analgesic activity in the koala. Another issue in those species that produce multiple metabolites is the possible co-elution of one or more metabolites such as M1 on the chromatogram, artificially inflating the peak area which is used for drug quantification [10]. The assay used here was developed to ensure that the chromatographic peaks for tramadol, M1 and M2 were well separated from each other and any other likely metabolite or endogenous plasma peak. When peaks overlapped, such as those located at M1’s retention time in chromatograms for two of the male koalas, LC-MS was used to identify the components of both peaks.

Koalas administered with tramadol at 4 mg/kg did not demonstrate any obvious clinical changes in their behavior other than initial mild sedation after drug administration. Although tramadol is considered to have minimal effects on the gastrointestinal tract, long-term administration may cause constipation or diarrhoea infrequently in some species such as in the dog [41]. An aged cat was erroneously dosed with tramadol at 80 mg/kg (the intended dose was 4 mg/kg) with the cat displaying signs suggestive of serotonin syndrome [42]. The median lethal dose (LD50) when tramadol is administered orally to the rat is 300 mg/kg [43]. Toxic dosages can result in biochemical and histological abnormalities in the liver, kidney, brain, heart and lung [43]. Due to interspecies differences, the LD50 for the koala cannot be predicted. Additionally, this study’s results demonstrate that M1 concentrations may increase substantially with increasing tramadol dosage and therefore it is possible that multiple or higher tramadol doses may significantly increase M1 concentrations, also potentially resulting in adverse / toxic effects.

Tramadol is available in oral and injectable formulations for administration to humans. There is substantial evidence that oral medications (such as enrofloxacin and meloxicam) are poorly absorbed in koalas [1, 17, 18, 20]. Tramadol was administered s.c. as this route appears to have superior bioavailability than oral administration. However, a future study on oral administration of tramadol may be warranted as it is possible that, due to the first-pass metabolism effect, orally absorbed tramadol could rapidly result in higher M1 concentrations.

The results of this study support the hypothesis that injectable tramadol at 4 mg/kg may provide analgesia for the koala. Unlike meloxicam s.c. administration, M1 seems to have a useful half-life if medicated tramadol is administered at the 4 mg/kg dosage. Tramadol is a complex molecule and in some parts of the world e.g. United Kingdom, M1 (desmetramadol) is now available as an injectable formulation. Such a formulation may prove to be a useful analgesic for the koala in the future.

Supporting information

S1 File

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the participation of Taronga Zoo veterinarians, laboratory technical officers, veterinary nurses, and koala keepers. Thanks to Paul Thompson at Taronga Zoo for the preparation and shipping of the samples. Thanks to Dr Ray Austen, Keen St Veterinary Clinic for providing additional plasma samples for this study.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

BK was supported by The Koala Hospital, Port Macquarie, NSW, Australia and the Winifred Violet Scott Charitable Foundation. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Kimble B, Black L, Li K, Valtchev P, Gilchrist S, Gillett A, et al. Pharmacokinetics of meloxicam in koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus) after intravenous, subcutaneous and oral administration. J Vet Pharmacol Ther. 2013;36(5):486–93. 10.1111/jvp.12038 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Kimble B, Li K, Valtchev P, Higgins D, Krockenberger M, Govendir M. In vitro hepatic microsomal metabolism of meloxicam in koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus), brushtail possums (Trichosurus vulpecula), ringtail possums (Pseudocheirus peregrinus), rats (Rattus norvegicus) and dogs (Canis lupus familiaris). Comp Biochem Phys C. 2014;161:7–14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Busch U, Schmid J, Heinzel G, Schmaus H, Baierl J, Huber C, et al. Pharmacokinetics of meloxicam in animals and the relevance to humans. Drug Metab Dispos. 1998;26(6):576–84. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Türck D, Roth W, Busch U. A review of the clinical pharmacokinetics of meloxicam. Br J Rheumatol. 1996;35(Suppl 1):13–6. 10.1093/rheumatology/35.suppl_1.13 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Pypendop BH, Ilkiw J. Pharmacokinetics of tramadol, and its metabolite O-desmethyl-tramadol, in cats. J Vet Pharmacol Ther. 2008;31(1):52–9. 10.1111/j.1365-2885.2007.00921.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Desmeules JA, Piguet V, Collart L, Dayer P. Contribution of monoaminergic modulation to the analgesic effect of tramadol. J Vet Pharmacol Ther. 1996;41(1):7–12. 10.1111/j.1365-2125.1996.tb00152.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Raffa RB, Friderichs E, Reimann W, Shank RP, Codd EE, Vaught JL. Opioid and nonopioid components independently contribute to the mechanism of action of tramadol, an ’atypical’ opioid analgesic. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1992;260(1):275–85. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gillen C, Haurand M, Kobelt DJ, Wnendt S. Affinity, potency and efficacy of tramadol and its metabolites at the cloned human μ-opioid receptor. N-S Arch Pharmacol. 2000;362(2):116–21. 10.1007/s002100000266 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Hennies H, Friderichs E, Schneider J. Receptor binding, analgesic and antitussive potency of tramadol and other selected opioids. Arzneimitt Forsch. 1988;38(7):877–80. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.KuKanich B, Papich M. Pharmacokinetics of tramadol and the metabolite O-desmethyltramadol in dogs. J Vet Pharmacol Ther. 2004;27(4):239–46. 10.1111/j.1365-2885.2004.00578.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Gong L, Stamer UM, Tzvetkov MV, Altman RB, Klein TE. PharmGKB summary: tramadol pathway. Pharmacogenet Genom. 2014;24:374–80. Epub 2014/05/23. 10.1097/FPC.0000000000000057 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Grond S, Sablotzki A. Clinical pharmacology of tramadol. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2004;43(13):879–923. 10.2165/00003088-200443130-00004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.de Kauwe T, Kimble B, Govendir M. Perceived efficacy of analgesic drug regimens used for koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus) in Australia. J Zoo Wildlife Med. 2014;45(2):350–6. 10.1638/2013-0251R1.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Gharibi S, Kimble B, Vogelnest L, Barnes J, Stadler C, Govendir M. Pharmacokinetics of posaconazole in koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus) after intravenous and oral administration. J Vet Pharmacol Ther. 2017;40(6):675–81. 10.1111/jvp.12407 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kukanich B, Wiese AJ. Opioids. In: Grimm K, Lamont L, Greene S, editors. Veterinary Anesthesia and analgesia, the fifth edition of Lumb and Jones. Ames, Iowa: Wiley Blackwell; 2015. p. 207–26. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Govendir M, Hanger J, Loader JJ, Kimble B, Griffith JE, Black LA, et al. Plasma concentrations of chloramphenicol after subcutaneous administration to koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus) with chlamydiosis. J Vet Pharmacol Ther. 2012;35:147–54. 10.1111/j.1365-2885.2011.01307.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Black L, Landersdorfer C, Bulitta J, Griffith J, Govendir M. Evaluation of enrofloxacin use in koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus) via population pharmacokinetics and Monte Carlo simulation. J Vet Pharmacol Ther. 2014;37(3):301–11. 10.1111/jvp.12091 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Griffith JE, Higgins DP, Li KM, Krockenberger MB, Govendir M. Absorption of enrofloxacin and marbofloxacin after oral and subcutaneous administration in diseased koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus). J Vet Pharmacol Ther. 2010;33:595–604. 10.1111/j.1365-2885.2010.01169.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Izes AM, Kimble B, Govendir M. Intrinsic clearance rate of O-desmethyltramadol (M1) by glucuronide conjugation and phase I metabolism by feline, canine and common brush-tailed possum microsomes. Xenobiotica. 2019:1–7. 10.1080/00498254.2019.1697014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Govendir M. Review of some pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of anti-infective medicines administered to the koala (Phascolarctos cinereus). J Vet Pharmacol Ther. 2018;41(1):1–10. 10.1111/jvp.12435 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Harmonised Tripartite guideline: Validation of Analytical Procedures: Text and Methodology Q2 (R1). Geneva, Switzerland 2005. http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Quality/Q2_R1/Step4/Q2_R1__Guideline.pdf.
  • 22.Zhang Y, Huo M, Zhou J, Xie S. PKSolver: An add-in program for pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data analysis in Microsoft Excel. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine. 2010;99:306–14. 10.1016/j.cmpb.2010.01.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Dow N. Determination of compound binding to plasma proteins Curr Protoc Pharmacol. 2006;34 7.5.1–7.5.15. 10.1002/0471141755.ph0705s34 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Lewis KS, Han NH. Tramadol: a new centrally acting analgesic. Am J Health-Syst Ph. 1997;54(6):643–52. 10.1093/ajhp/54.6.643 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.De Moraes NV, Lauretti GR, Napolitano MN, Santos NR, Godoy ALPC, Lanchote VL. Enantioselective analysis of unbound tramadol, O-desmethyltramadol and N-desmethyltramadol in plasma by ultrafiltration and LC–MS/MS: Application to clinical pharmacokinetics. J Chromatogr B. 2012;880:140–7. 10.1016/j.jchromb.2011.11.033 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Pedersen RS, Damkier P, Brøsen K. Enantioselective pharmacokinetics of tramadol in CYP2D6 extensive and poor metabolizers. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2006;62(7):513–21. 10.1007/s00228-006-0135-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Grond S, Meuser T, Uragg H, Stahlberg HJ, Lehmann KA. Serum concentrations of tramadol enantiomers during patient-controlled analgesia. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1999;48(2):254–7. 10.1046/j.1365-2125.1999.00986.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Lehmann KA, Kratzenberg U, Schroeder-Bark B, Horrichs-Haermeyer G. Postoperative patient-controlled analgesia with tramadol: analgesic efficacy and minimum effective concentrations. Clin J Pain. 1990;6(3):212–20. 10.1097/00002508-199009000-00008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Papich MG, Davis JL, Chen AX, Bledsoe DL. Tramadol pharmacokinetics in dogs and in vitro-in vivo correlation of an oral extended release tablet. J Vet Intern Med. 2007;21(3):616. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Gharibi S, Vogelnest L, Govendir M. In vitro binding of cefovecin to plasma proteins in Australian marsupials and plasma concentrations of cefovecin following single subcutaneous administration to koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus). Aus Vet J. 2019;97(3):75–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Riviere JE, Buur J. Distribution. In: Riviere JE, editor. Comparative pharmacokinetics, principles, techniques and applications. 2nd ed. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011. p. 73–90. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Cagnardi P, Villa R, Zonca A, Gallo M, Beccaglia M, Luvoni G, et al. Pharmacokinetics, intraoperative effect and postoperative analgesia of tramadol in cats. Res Vet Sci. 2011;90(3):503–9. 10.1016/j.rvsc.2010.07.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Dooney NM, Sundararajan K, Ramkumar T, Somogyi AA, Upton RN, Ong J, et al. Ludbrook GL. Pharmacokinetics of tramadol after subcutaneous administration in a critically ill population and in a healthy cohort. BMC Anesthesiol. 2014;14(1):33. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Shilo Y, Britzi M, Eytan B, Lifschitz T, Soback S, Steinman A. Pharmacokinetics of tramadol in horses after intravenous, intramuscular and oral administration. J Vet Pharmacol Ther. 2008;31(1):60–5. 10.1111/j.1365-2885.2007.00929.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Hua Gan S, Ismail R, Adnan WAW, Zulmi W. Impact of CYP2D6 Genetic Polymorphism on Tramadol Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics. Mol Diagn Ther. 2007;11(3):171–81. 10.1007/BF03256239 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kirchheiner J, Keulen J-TH, Bauer S, Roots I, Brockmöller J. Effects of the CYP2D6 gene duplication on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of tramadol. J Clin Psychopharm. 2008;28(1):78–83. 10.1097/JCP.0b013e318160f827 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Buhari S, Hashim K, Yong Meng G, Mustapha NM, Gan SH. Subcutaneous administration of tramadol after elective surgery is as effective as intravenous administration in relieving acute pain and inflammation in dogs. Sci World J. 2012;2012. 10.1100/2012/564939 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.KuKanich B, Papich MG. Pharmacokinetics and antinociceptive effects of oral tramadol hydrochloride administration in Greyhounds. Am J Vet Res. 2011;72(2):256–62. 10.2460/ajvr.72.2.256 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Vettorato E, Zonca A, Isola M, Villa R, Gallo M, Ravasio G, et al. Pharmacokinetics and efficacy of intravenous and extradural tramadol in dogs. Vet J. 2010;183(3):310–5. 10.1016/j.tvjl.2008.11.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Gillett A, Hanger J. Koala. In: Vogelnest L, Portas T, editors. Current Therapy in Medicine of Australian Mammals Melbourne: CSIRO; 2019. p. 463–87. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Gaynor J, Muir W. Alternative drugs and novel therapies to treat pain In: Gaynor JS M W, editor. Veterinary Pain management. St Louis, MO: Elsevior; 2015. p. 280–301. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Indrawirawan Y, McAlees T. Tramadol toxicity in a cat: case report and literature review of serotonin syndrome. J Feline Med Surg. 2014;16(7):572–8. 10.1177/1098612X14539088 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Faria J, Barbosa J, Moreira R, Queirós O, Carvalho F, Dinis-Oliveira R. Comparative pharmacology and toxicology of tramadol and tapentadol. Eur J Pain. 2018;22(5):827–44. 10.1002/ejp.1196 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Thomas PC Dorlo

13 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-36088

Pharmacokinetic profile of injectable tramadol in the koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) and prediction of its analgesic efficacy

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Govendir,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 20 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Thomas P.C. Dorlo, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1.) Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2.) Please include a copy of Table 5 which you refer to in your text on page 13.

3.) Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

4.) We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 4 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

5.) We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

- https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jvp.12767

- https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00498254.2019.1697014?journalCode=ixen20

- https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/18012

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I have only minor comments

Table 1 and 2: I am not sure reporting SD when there are only two or four observations is meaningful.

“the amount of each enantiomer may have a different rate of elimination” seem to suggest non-linear kinetics which I do not think is the intention here. I suggest removing “the amount of”.

Page 13 line 265, the units are wrong? The text mentions a half-life while the number mentions are mg/ml.

Reviewer #2: This is a well written manuscript describing a fairly simple pharmacokinetic study of tramadol in koala's. This type of research is essential to ensure the safe and effective use of analgesics in different animal species. I have a few minor comments and questions:

1. In Tables 1 through 3 it would be helpful if AUC and Cmax were reported as AUC/Dose and Cmax/Dose as well so that readers can evaluate whether there is dose-linearity.

2. I could not evaluate Figures 2 and 3 because they were black in my manuscript.

3. You argue that subcutaneous administration is preferable in koala's due to better absorption. However, if analgesia is primarily due to the M1 metabolite, wouldn't oral administration potentially be preferable due to the first-pass effect giving higher and more rapid M1 concentrations? Shouldn't this be included in the discussion?

Reviewer #3: Comments to the authors:

Koalas are facing many threats and new knowledge about safe and effective analgesia that can be used in koalas is very important. The authors have conducted a well described pharmacokinetic study of tramadol in koalas that is expected to add useful information to the literature.

Minor comments

1. The authors are comparing the minimum effective concentrations of tramadol and M1 in koalas to those reported in humans. Also, protein binding was measured in koala plasma. In the manuscript it is not always clear whether the total or unbound concentrations were compared (line 313 mentioned unbound plasma concentrations). Since plasma protein binding of tramadol M1 appears to be similar between koalas and humans, comparing total concentrations seems fine, however this could be briefly stated. In addition to the comparison with effective concentrations, a comparison with potentially toxic concentrations could be useful, although there would be limitations because of inter species differences.

2. The apparently longer elimination half-life of M1 in koalas compared to humans is interesting however does not appear to be due to protein binding, based on the information given in the manuscript, because plasma protein binding of tramadol M1 appears to be similar between koalas and humans.

3. The profiles in Figure 4 indicate that the M1 concentrations may increase more than proportionally with tramadol dose, or this could be due to interindividual variability between koalas, however it would be useful to discuss. If M1 concentrations increase more than dose proportionally it could potentially have an impact for concentrations reached with multiple dosing or higher doses, or potentially impact toxicity in case doses are increased.

4. The average profiles in Figure 3 show the concentrations following the higher dose dropping slightly below those of the lower dose, most likely due to the interindividual variability between koalas. This might be worth stating in the figure legend or footnote. Also, it should be reported whether the concentrations of 12 h for the higher dose were all below the limit of quantification and are therefore not in Figure 3.

5. Line 168: elimination constant should be elimination rate constant, also k is the inverse slope of the elimination or terminal part of the semi-log curve.

6. It would be useful to report how many time points were used to determine k and which software was used for noncompartmental analysis.

7. The M1 has a quite flat profile between 2 and 12 h and it might be useful to show the profiles on log scale e.g. in the supplementary information to illustrate the half-life. There is likely a limitation in the determination of the elimination half-life of M1, because the average of 25 h reported for the 4 mg/kg dose is twice the duration of the study (last sample at 12 h), so this might be mentioned as a limitation in the discussion.

8. Line 254: the words “the amount of” seem not to be needed.

9. Lines 316 to 320: The sentence should be reworded to improve clarity.

10. Line 323: the word “range” seems not to be needed.

11. It is not clear whether all sheets (e.g. sheet 2) of the supplementary excel file are intended to be included in the supplementary material for readers.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Ronette Gehring

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Mar 3;16(3):e0247546. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247546.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


8 Feb 2021

The Authors thank the Editor and all three Reviewers for their time and their excellent comments and suggestions.

Editor’s comments

1.) Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

• The manuscript has been edited to meet the PLOS ONE’s style requirements

2.) Please include a copy of Table 5 which you refer to in your text on page 13.

• Apologies, there was no Table 5; the reference was meant to be Table 4, now corrected. See lines 315 and 322

3.) Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

• This has been done to meet PLOS ONE’s supporting information guidelines

4.) We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 4 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

• This has been corrected according to the Editor’s comment 2. Additionally, a further sentence has been added to introduce Table 4. See line 321: A summary of tramadol parameters available for some species are provided in Table 4.

5.) We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

- https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jvp.12767

- https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00498254.2019.1697014?journalCode=ixen20

- https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/18012

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

• This manuscript has been run through ‘Grammerly’ to check for overlapping text and has been edited to minimise.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Reviewer #1: I have only minor comments

The Authors thank Reviewer 1 for their helpful comments.

Table 1 and 2: I am not sure reporting SD when there are only two or four observations is meaningful.

The mean ± SD has been removed and replaced by a median column for the 4 mg/kg tramadol administration. The reader can see the range as all the values from all koalas are presented.

• Values in the text and in the Tables have been changed to medians in the text

“the amount of each enantiomer may have a different rate of elimination” seem to suggest non-linear kinetics which I do not think is the intention here. I suggest removing “the amount of”.

• Thank you for this comment. “The amount of” has been deleted

Page 13 line 265, the units are wrong? The text mentions a half-life while the number mentions are mg/ml.

Thank you for detecting this. Accordingly, the median half-lives units for M1 and tramadol have been changed to hours (h) - see lines 297 and 298

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Reviewer #2:

The Authors thank Reviewer 2 for their helpful comments.

This is a well written manuscript describing a fairly simple pharmacokinetic study of tramadol in koala's. This type of research is essential to ensure the safe and effective use of analgesics in different animal species. I have a few minor comments and questions:

1. In Tables 1 through 3 it would be helpful if AUC and Cmax were reported as AUC/Dose and Cmax/Dose as well so that readers can evaluate whether there is dose-linearity.

• As requested, AUC / Dose and Cmax/ dose have been added to Tables 1 through 3. A one-way ANOVA was undertaken to analyse if there was a significant difference for Cmax/dose and AUC 0-t / dose for tramadol, M1 and M2. There was no significant difference for any comparison. Non-significant p values are provided with in Table 1 (tramadol) and in footnotes for M1 and M2 Tables.

The following has been added to the Material and Methods see lines 201 – 204

In order to assess any difference in Cmax or AUC0-t h when normalised for dose (2 mg/kg or 4 mg/kg tramadol administration); the Cmax / dose and AUC0-t / dose values for tramadol, M1 and M2 were compared by a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) using Graphpad Prism 9.0 (San Diego, CA). The level of significance (p) was < 0.05.

The following has been added to the Results see lines 275 - 276:

There were no significant differences in the tramadol, M1 or M2 Cmax or AUC0-t when normalised for tramadol dose (2 mg/kg or 4 mg/kg administration).

The following has been added to the Discussion see lines 301 - 303:

There were no statistical differences when the Cmax or AUC0-t for tramadol, M1 or M2 were normalised for tramadol dose, suggesting that tramadol, M1 and M2 demonstrate linear pharmacokinetics regardless to tramadol dose.

2. I could not evaluate Figures 2 and 3 because they were black in my manuscript.

• Apologies, for this this problem. CLICK ON THE LINK IN THE TOP RIGHT OF EACH FIGURE AND IT WILL OPEN IN A NEW WINDOW AND EACH FIGURE / GRAPH IS THEN VISIBLE.

3. You argue that subcutaneous administration is preferable in koala's due to better absorption. However, if analgesia is primarily due to the M1 metabolite, wouldn't oral administration potentially be preferable due to the first-pass effect giving higher and more rapid M1 concentrations? Shouldn't this be included in the discussion?

• Thank you for this suggestion. Accordingly, the following has been added, see lines 409-411 :

However, a future study on oral administration of tramadol may be warranted as it is possible that, due to the first-pass metabolism effect, orally absorbed tramadol could rapidly result in higher M1 concentrations.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Reviewer #3:

The Authors thank Reviewer 3 for their helpful comments.

Comments to the authors:

Koalas are facing many threats and new knowledge about safe and effective analgesia that can be used in koalas is very important. The authors have conducted a well described pharmacokinetic study of tramadol in koalas that is expected to add useful information to the literature.

Minor comments

1. The authors are comparing the minimum effective concentrations of tramadol and M1 in koalas to those reported in humans. Also, protein binding was measured in koala plasma. In the manuscript it is not always clear whether the total or unbound concentrations were compared (line 313 mentioned unbound plasma concentrations). Since plasma protein binding of tramadol M1 appears to be similar between koalas and humans, comparing total concentrations seems fine, however this could be briefly stated. In addition to the comparison with effective concentrations, a comparison with potentially toxic concentrations could be useful, although there would be limitations because of inter species differences.

Re plasma protein binding in line 313, it was the total binding that was being compared. However, in the light of your comment, incorporating plasma protein binding at this point of the manuscript may confuse the reader and thus has now been deleted.

*Re the potentially toxic concentrations the following statement has been added: (see lines 396 – 401)

An aged cat was erroneously dosed with tramadol at 80 mg/kg (the intended dose was 4 mg/kg) with the cat displaying signs suggestive of serotonin syndrome [42]. The median lethal dose (LD50) when tramadol is administered orally to the rat is 300 mg/kg [43]. Toxic dosages can result in biochemical and histological abnormalities in the liver, kidney, brain, heart and lung [43]. Due to interspecies differences, the LD50 for the koala cannot be predicted.

2. The apparently longer elimination half-life of M1 in koalas compared to humans is interesting however does not appear to be due to protein binding, based on the information given in the manuscript, because plasma protein binding of tramadol M1 appears to be similar between koalas and humans.

This is a helpful comment. The plasma protein binding was undertaken to attempt to see if this could partially explain the longer M1 half-life in the koala. It is agreed that the tramadol and M1 binding in the koala and human are similar. Therefore, the phrase “it is interesting to speculate whether the higher M1 binding to plasma proteins observed here (75%) contributed to the long M1 half-life in the koala has been deleted”.

3. The profiles in Figure 4 indicate that the M1 concentrations may increase more than proportionally with tramadol dose, or this could be due to interindividual variability between koalas, however it would be useful to discuss. If M1 concentrations increase more than dose proportionally it could potentially have an impact for concentrations reached with multiple dosing or higher doses, or potentially impact toxicity in case doses are increased.

Considering your comment this has been added, see lines 401 to 404:

Additionally, the M1 results in this study demonstrate that M1 concentrations may increase substantially with increasing tramadol dosage and therefore it is possible that multiple or higher tramadol doses may significantly increase M1 concentrations, also potentially resulting in adverse / toxic effects.

4. The average profiles in Figure 3 show the concentrations following the higher dose dropping slightly below those of the lower dose, most likely due to the interindividual variability between koalas. This might be worth stating in the figure legend or footnote. Also, it should be reported whether the concentrations of 12 h for the higher dose were all below the limit of quantification and are therefore not in Figure 3.

The legend for Figure 3 has been emended accordingly: The graph of the 4 mg/kg tramadol dose dips slightly below the 2 mg/kg tramadol dose – this may be due to individual variability between koalas. The tramadol concentrations of the 4 mg/kg tramadol dose at not provided at 12 h as they are below the LLOQ = 15.63 ng/mL.

5. Line 168: elimination constant should be elimination rate constant, also k is the inverse slope of the elimination or terminal part of the semi-log curve.

This has been emended accordingly.

6. It would be useful to report how many time points were used to determine k and which software was used for noncompartmental analysis.

PK Solver [22] was used for the noncompartmental analysis see lines 179 – 180.

The number of time points used to determine K are now bolded in S2 to S4 tables. The reader is directed there by the information under Tables 2, 3 and 4. E.g. See Table 2: Abbreviations: kel = terminal rate constant; t1/2 = half-life [Data points used are bolded in S2 Table];

7. The M1 has a quite flat profile between 2 and 12 h and it might be useful to show the profiles on log scale e.g. in the supplementary information to illustrate the half-life. There is likely a limitation in the determination of the elimination half-life of M1, because the average of 25 h reported for the 4 mg/kg dose is twice the duration of the study (last sample at 12 h), so this might be mentioned as a limitation in the discussion.

The M1 figure (Figure 4) has been modified to show the log concentration.

The following has been added to the Discussion, see lines 292 – 296:

One of the limitations of interpretation of the M1 data was that the last data point collected was at 12 h, indicating that at 12 h, M1 was in the early elimination phase in all koalas. Further plasma collection at time points beyond 12 h of tramadol administration would provide a more accurate determination of the M1 plasma profile.

8. Line 254: the words “the amount of” seem not to be needed.

Reviewer 1 also commended on this and “the amount of” has been deleted.

9. Lines 316 to 320: The sentence should be reworded to improve clarity.

This sentence has been reworded as (now see Lines 346 – 349):

The minimum effective plasma concentration for tramadol in humans is somewhat variable depending on the study’s experimental design. Therefore some minimal effective analgesic concentrations of tramadol in humans range from 100 ng/mL [37], with a median of 287.7 ng/mL [27], to as high as 590 � 410 ng/mL [26].

10. Line 323: the word “range” seems not to be needed.

“range” has been deleted

11. It is not clear whether all sheets (e.g. sheet 2) of the supplementary excel file are intended to be included in the supplementary material for readers.

Thank you. The extraneous information on sheet 2 of the supplementary excel file has been deleted.

________________________________________

Decision Letter 1

Thomas PC Dorlo

10 Feb 2021

Pharmacokinetic profile of injectable tramadol in the koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) and prediction of its analgesic efficacy

PONE-D-20-36088R1

Dear Dr. Govendir,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Thomas P.C. Dorlo, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Thomas PC Dorlo

15 Feb 2021

PONE-D-20-36088R1

Pharmacokinetic profile of injectable tramadol in the koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) and prediction of its analgesic efficacy  

Dear Dr. Govendir:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Thomas P.C. Dorlo

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File

    (XLSX)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES