Literature DB >> 16280198

Comparative plasma dispositions of ivermectin and doramectin following subcutaneous and oral administration in dogs.

Cengiz Gokbulut1, Umit Karademir, Murat Boyacioglu, Quintin A McKellar.   

Abstract

This study evaluates the comparative plasma dispositions of ivermectin (IVM) and doramectin (DRM) following oral and subcutaneous administration (200 microg/kg) over a 40-day period in dogs. Twenty bitches were allocated by weight in to four groups (Groups I-IV) of five animals each. Animals in the first two groups (Groups I and II) received orally the injectable solutions of IVM and DRM, respectively, at the dose of 200 microg/kg bodyweight. The other two groups (Groups III and IV) received subcutaneously injectable solutions at the same dose rate. Blood samples were collected between 1h and 40 days after treatment and the plasma samples were analysed by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) using fluorescence detection. The results indicated that IVM produced a significantly higher maximum plasma concentration (C(max): 116.80+/-10.79 ng/ml) with slower absorption (t(max): 0.23+/-0.09 day) and larger area under the concentration versus time curve (AUC: 236.79+/-41.45 ng day/ml) as compared with DRM (C(max): 86.47+/-19.80 ng/ml, t(max): 0.12+/-0.05 day, AUC: 183.48+/-13.17 ng day/ml) following oral administration of both drugs; whereas no significant differences were observed on the pharmacokinetic parameters between IVM and DRM after subcutaneous administrations. In addition, subcutaneously given IVM and DRM presented a significantly lower maximum plasma concentration (C(max): 66.80+/-9.67 ng/ml and 54.78+/-11.99 ng/ml, respectively) with slower absorption (t(max): 1.40+/-1.00 day and 1.70+/-0.76 day, respectively) and larger area under the concentration versus time curve (AUC: 349.18+/-47.79 ng day/ml and 292.10+/-78.76 ng day/ml, respectively) as compared with the oral administration of IVM and DRM, respectively. No difference was observed for the terminal half-lives ((t(1/2lambda(z)) and mean residence times (MRT) of both molecules. Considering the pharmacokinetic parameters, IVM and DRM could be used by the oral or subcutaneous route for the control of parasitic infection in dogs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16280198     DOI: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2005.10.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vet Parasitol        ISSN: 0304-4017            Impact factor:   2.738


  5 in total

Review 1.  How do the macrocyclic lactones kill filarial nematode larvae?

Authors:  Adrian J Wolstenholme; Mary J Maclean; Ruby Coates; Ciaran J McCoy; Barbara J Reaves
Journal:  Invert Neurosci       Date:  2016-06-09

Review 2.  Toxicology of avermectins and milbemycins (macrocylic lactones) and the role of P-glycoprotein in dogs and cats.

Authors:  Valentina M Merola; Paul A Eubig
Journal:  Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 2.093

3.  Survival and Fecundity of Anopheles stephensi and Anopheles albimanus Mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) After Ingesting Bovine Blood Containing Various Veterinary Systemic Parasiticides.

Authors:  Staci M Dreyer; Jefferson A Vaughan
Journal:  J Med Entomol       Date:  2022-09-14       Impact factor: 2.435

4.  Avermectin transepithelial transport in MDR1- and MRP-transfected canine kidney monolayers.

Authors:  David J Brayden; Joanna Griffin
Journal:  Vet Res Commun       Date:  2007-06-20       Impact factor: 2.459

5.  Macrocyclic lactone anthelmintic-induced leukocyte binding to Dirofilaria immitis microfilariae: Influence of the drug resistance status of the parasite.

Authors:  Tessa Berrafato; Ruby Coates; Barbara J Reaves; Daniel Kulke; Adrian J Wolstenholme
Journal:  Int J Parasitol Drugs Drug Resist       Date:  2019-04-26       Impact factor: 4.077

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.