References

This page summarizes the core findings used in the simulator, including consolidated pharmacokinetic ranges, implementation assumptions, and source citations.

Key Findings

Injectable estradiol and testosterone esters act as depot formulations: the esterified hormone forms a local depot after injection and is released over time, then hydrolyzed to the parent hormone in circulation.

The model uses first-order absorption and elimination, with ester-specific half-life ranges and apparent V/F coefficients to represent depot kinetics and distribution at clinically observed scales.

Consolidated Pharmacokinetic Parameter Ranges

HRT Ester Absorption Half-life (h) Elimination Half-life (h) Bioavailability (F) Apparent V/F (L/kg)
Estradiol Valerate 14.00 - 20.00 84.00 - 120.00 1.00 250.00 - 350.00
Estradiol Cypionate 16.80 - 36.00 90.00 - 240.00 1.00 350.00 - 450.00
Estradiol Enanthate 11.00 - 14.00 134.00 - 180.00 1.00 400.00 - 550.00
Testosterone Cypionate 13.60 97.20 - 192.00 0.95 160.00 - 180.00
Testosterone Enanthate 3.04 108.00 0.95 150.00 - 190.00
Testosterone Propionate 1.20 19.20 0.95 160.00 - 190.00
Testosterone Undecanoate 4.90 - 5.50 501.60 - 813.60 0.95 140.00 - 160.00

Mathematical Modeling Guide

The simulator implements a one-compartment first-order depot model:

C(t) = [Dose x F x ka / (Vd x (ka - ke))] x (e-ket - e-kat)

Rate constants are computed from half-lives as k = ln(2) / t1/2. Apparent volume is weight-scaled as V = (V/F coefficient in L/kg) x body weight (kg).

Clinical display units are produced after conversion from model mass/volume units:

Clinical Default Archetypes Used in the Documentation

Core Pharmacokinetic Literature

  1. Dusterberg B, Nishino Y (1982). Pharmacokinetic and pharmacological features of oestradiol valerate. Maturitas. DOI: 10.1016/0378-5122(82)90064-0
  2. Oriowo MA, et al. (1980). A comparison of the pharmacokinetic properties of three estradiol esters. Contraception. DOI: 10.1016/S0010-7824(80)80018-7
  3. Silva-Bernal D, et al. (2019). Quantification of estradiol cypionate in plasma and application in a pharmacokinetic study. Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpba.2019.03.045
  4. Dusterberg B, et al. (2008). Pharmacokinetics and biotransformation of estradiol valerate. Hormone Research. DOI: 10.1159/000180039
  5. Sierra-Ramirez JA, et al. (2011). Comparative pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics after subcutaneous and intramuscular estradiol cypionate. Contraception. DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2011.03.014
  6. Bi C, et al. (2018). Population PK/PD modeling of depot testosterone cypionate. CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology. DOI: 10.1002/psp4.12287
  7. Zitzmann M, Nieschlag E (2007). Androgen substitution with long-acting testosterone undecanoate. The Aging Male. DOI: 10.1080/13685530601063689
  8. Vervalcke M, et al. (2024). Estradiol valerate pharmacokinetics in assigned-male-at-birth individuals. Endocrine Abstracts. DOI: 10.1210/clinem/dgaf015
  9. Herndon J, et al. (2023). Population pharmacokinetics of subcutaneous and intramuscular testosterone enanthate. Journal of the Endocrine Society. DOI: 10.1210/jendso/bvad059
  10. Fujioka M, et al. (1986). Pharmacokinetic properties of testosterone propionate in normal men. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. DOI: 10.1210/jcem-63-6-1361
  11. Yin X, et al. (2021). Population pharmacokinetics of intramuscular testosterone undecanoate. CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology. DOI: 10.1002/psp4.12704
  12. White WB, et al. (1998). The pharmacokinetics of intravenous estradiol. Pharmacotherapy. DOI: 10.1002/j.1875-9114.1998.tb03160.x
  13. Macheras P (1984). Quick method for the calculation of the absorption rate constant. International Journal of Pharmaceutics. DOI: 10.1016/0378-5173(84)90063-2

Supplemental Sources

Note: This simulator is for educational visualization. Citations are provided for transparency about assumptions, not as direct clinical dosing guidance.

Back to Home