Cited by 5Neuroendocrine regulation and behaviorPharmaceutical studies and practicesPharmacogenetics and Drug Metabolism

Plasma pharmacokinetics of intravenous and intranasal oxytocin in nonpregnant adults

Open access
Shafer, Steven L., Ririe, Douglas G., Miller, Scott, Curry, Regina S., Hsu, David T., Sullivan, Gregory M., Eisenach, James C.·2025·British Journal of Anaesthesia

Abstract

Background The development of oxytocin as a therapeutic agent outside of obstetrics has been hampered by antibody-based assays that lack specificity, leading to inconsistent and incompletely reported pharmacokinetic models to guide drug dosing. This study describes the population plasma pharmacokinetics of intravenous and intranasal oxytocin using a sensitive and specific liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectroscopy (LC/MS) assay.Methods Two studies in healthy adult men and nonpregnant women were performed, the first with intravenous oxytocin 16.7 μg over 1 or 10 min and the second with intravenous oxytocin 13.7 μg over 30 min and, on a separate day, intranasal oxytocin 100 μg (n=24). Venous plasma oxytocin concentration was measured using LC/MS and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated using NONMEM.Results The pharmacokinetics of intravenous oxytocin were well described by a two-compartment model (0% bias, 18% median inaccuracy). The two-compartment model for intranasal oxytocin was characterised by substantial subject-to-subject variability (9% median bias, 47% median inaccuracy). Nasal oxytocin bioavailability was 0.7%. Oxytocin samples assayed with LC/MS were systematically higher than simultaneous samples assayed with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.Conclusions The pharmacokinetics of intravenous oxytocin are well described by a two-compartment model. The low bioavailability (<1%) and large intersubject variability in plasma oxytocin after intranasal dosing could partially explain the inconsistent reports of oxytocin efficacy in the clinical literature with this delivery method. A publicly available simulator was created to guide oxytocin dosing in future studies.Clinical trial registration NCT03929367 (Study 1) and NCT05672667 (Study 2).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.bja.2024.12.046

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Salivary OXT can provide more stable measurements than plasma OXT because it has a longer half-life, whereas plasma OXT fluctuates rapidly due to its 7-min half-life and pulsatile release pattern.

    “Unlike plasma OXT, which fluctuates rapidly due to its 7-min half-life (Shafer et al., 2025) and pulsatile release pattern (Baskaran et al., 2017), salivary OXT can provide more stable measurements since it has a longer half-life (Quintana et al., 2018).”

    From Music's context-dependent influence on oxytocin, social bonding, and emotion regulation: a systematic review (2026) · cites this paper as Shafer et al., 2025

    The Shafer citation is attached specifically to the asserted 7-minute plasma oxytocin half-life, not to the claims about pulsatile release or saliva. The Pharmacokinetic analysis and Table 1 (page unavailable) report plasma model parameters, but searches for “half-life,” “7-min,” and plasma elimination in minutes found no passage stating a 7-minute half-life. (LLM, conf=0.70)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Authors
Shafer, S. L., Ririe, D. G., Miller, S., Curry, R. S., Hsu, D. T., Sullivan, G. M., & Eisenach, J. C.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Wake Forest University (US)
  • Tonix Pharmaceuticals (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Shafer, Steven L.
Venue
British Journal of Anaesthesia
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2025-05
Volume
134
Issue
5
Pages
1513-1522
ISSN
0007-0912 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4408721572
Cited by
5
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1
FWCI
5.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Anaesthesia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (UL1TR001420)
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Neuroendocrine regulation and behavior
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pharmaceutical studies and practices
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmacogenetics and Drug Metabolism
Keywords
oxytocin, plasma pharmacokinetics, intranasal administration, intravenous administration, bioavailability, interindividual variability, two-compartment model, LC-MS assay, dosing simulation, non-pregnant adults
MeSH terms
Administration, Intranasal, Adult, Biological Availability, Chromatography, Liquid, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Oxytocics, Oxytocin, Tandem Mass Spectrometry, Young Adult, Administration, Intravenous

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review