Drug Res (Stuttg) 2022; 72(01): 18-22
DOI: 10.1055/a-1577-2955
Original Article

Rectal Administration of Ibuprofen: Comparison of Enema and Suppository Form

Budi Prasaja
1   Clinisindo Laboratories, Jakarta, Indonesia
Yahdiana Harahap
2   Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia
Monika Sandra
1   Clinisindo Laboratories, Jakarta, Indonesia
Irene Iskandar
1   Clinisindo Laboratories, Jakarta, Indonesia
Windy Lusthom
1   Clinisindo Laboratories, Jakarta, Indonesia
Prawitasari Cahyaningsih
3   Novell Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Jakarta, Indonesia
› Author Affiliations


Ibuprofen is a widely used and well-tolerated analgesic and antipyretic. It is desirable to have a formulation with a rapid rate of absorption because it is required for rapid pain relief and temperature reduction. Previous studies have described the pharmacokinetic profiles of ibuprofen suppository and the mean peak times of ibuprofen suppository were around 1.8 hours, indicating a slower rate of absorption. The aim of this study is to compare the pharmacokinetic parameters of rectal administration of ibuprofen between enema and suppository form in order to provide evidence for the faster absorption rates of ibuprofen enema. This study was a phase-1 clinical study, open-label, randomized and two-way crossover with one-week washout period comparing the absorption profile of equal dose of ibuprofen administered rectally in two treatment phases: ibuprofen suppository and enema. Blood samples were collected post dose for pharmacokinetic analyses. Tmax was analyzed using a Wilcoxon matched paired test. A standard ANOVA model, appropriate for bioequivalence studies was used and ratios of 90% confidence intervals were calculated. This study showed that Tmax for ibuprofen enema was less than half that of ibuprofen suppository (median 40 min vs. 90 min, respectively; p-value=0.0003). Cmax and AUC0–12 for ibuprofen enema were bioequivalent to ibuprofen suppository, as the ratio of test/reference=104.52%, 90% CI 93.41–116.95% and the ratio of test/reference=98.12%, 90%CI 93.34–103.16%, respectively, which fell within 80–125% bioequivalence limit. The overall extent of absorption was similar to the both, which were all well tolerated. In terms of Tmax, Ibuprofen enema was absorbed twice as quickly as from ibuprofen suppository. Therefore it is expected that an ibuprofen enema may provide faster onset of analgesic and antipyretic benefit.

Publication History

Received: 24 March 2021

Accepted: 28 July 2021

Article published online:
20 August 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

  • References

  • 1 Purssell E. Treating fever in children: paracetamol or ibuprofen?. Br J Community Nurs 2002; 7: 316-320
  • 2 Crocetti M, Moghbeli N, Serwint J. Fever phobia revisited: have parental misconceptions about fever changed in 20 years?. Pediatrics 107: 1241-1246
  • 3 Davies NM. Clinical pharmacokinetics of ibuprofen: the first 30 years. Clin Pharmacokinet 1998; 34: 101-154
  • 4 Bushra R, Aslam N. An overview of clinical pharmacology of ibuprofen. Oman Med J. 2010; 25: 155-161
  • 5 Neupert W, Brugger R, Euchenhofer C. et al. Effects of ibuprofen enantiomers and its coenzyme A thioesters on human prostaglandin endoperoxide synthases. Br J Pharmacol 1997; 122: 487-492
  • 6 Funk CG. Prostaglandins and leukotrienes: advances in eicosanoid biology. Science 2001; 294: 1871-1875
  • 7 Martinez MN, Amidon GL. A mechanistic approach to understanding the factors affecting drug absorption: a review of fundamentals. J Clin Pharmacol 2002; 42: 620-643
  • 8 Newa M, Bhandari KH, Oh DH. et al. Enhanced dissolution of ibuprofen using solid dispersion with poloxamer 407. Arch Pharm Res 2008; 31: 1497-1507
  • 9 Dewland PM, Reader S, Berry P. Bioavailability of ibuprofen following oral administration of standard ibuprofen, sodium ibuprofen or ibuprofen acid incorporating poloxamer in healthy volunteers. BMC Clin Pharmacol 2009; 9: 19
  • 10 Handayani S, Hadinegoro SR, Sastroasmoro S. The efficacy of suppository versus oral ibuprofen for reducing fever in children. Paediatr Indones 2005; 45: 211-216
  • 11 Vilenchik R, Berkovitch M, Jossifoff A. et al. Oral versus rectal ibuprofen in healthy volunteers. J Popul Ther Clin Pharmacol 2012; 19: e179-e186
  • 12 Wiria MSS, Suyatna FD. A comparative bioavailability study of two ibuprofen formulations after single-dose administration in healthy volunteers. Med J Indones 2007; 16: 181-186
  • 13 Eller MG, Wright C, Della-Coletta AA. Absorption kinetics of rectally and orally administered ibuprofen. Biopharm. Drug Dispos 1989; 10: 269-278
  • 14 Jongjaroenprasert W, Akarawut W, Chantasart D. et al. Rectal administration of propylthiouracyl in hyperthyroid patients: comparison of suspension enema and suppository form. Thyroid 2002; 12: 627-631
  • 15 Purohit Vs.. Biopharmaceutic planning in pediatric drug development. AAPS J 2012; 14: 519-522
  • 16 Diletti E, Hauscke D, Stenijans VW. Sample size determination for bioequivalence assessment by means of confidence intervals. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol 1991; 29: 1-8
  • 17 Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007. Title VI: Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2007. Pub.L. no 110-85, 121 Stat 823 (2007)
  • 18 Albert KS, Gernaat CM. Pharmacokinetics of ibuprofen. Am J Med 1984; 771A: 40-46
  • 19 Smith HS, Voss B. Pharmacokinetics of Intravenous Ibuprofen Implication of Time of Infusion in the Treatment of Pain and Fever. Drugs 2012; 72: 327-337
  • 20 Kauffman RE, Nelson MV. Effect of age on Ibuprofen pharmacokinetics and antipyretic response. J Pediatr 1992; 126: 969-973