OBJECTIVE: To determine the pharmacokinetics of orally administered rapamycin in healthy dogs. ANIMALS: 5 healthy purpose-bred hounds. PROCEDURES: The study consisted of 2 experiments. In experiment 1, each dog received rapamycin (0.1 mg/kg, PO) once; blood samples were obtained immediately before and at 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 6, 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours after administration. In experiment 2, each dog received rapamycin (0.1 mg/kg, PO) once daily for 5 days; blood samples were obtained immediately before and at 3, 6, 24, 27, 30, 48, 51, 54, 72, 75, 78, 96, 96.5, 97, 98, 100, 102, 108, 120, 144, and 168 hours after the first dose. Blood rapamycin concentration was determined by a validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry assay. Pharmacokinetic parameters were determined by compartmental and noncompartmental analyses. RESULTS: Mean ± SD blood rapamycin terminal half-life, area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 48 hours after dosing, and maximum concentration were 38.7 ± 12.7 h, 140 ± 23.9 ng•h/mL, and 8.39 ± 1.73 ng/mL, respectively, for experiment 1, and 99.5 ± 89.5 h, 126 ± 27.1 ng•h/mL, and 5.49 ± 1.99 ng/mL, respectively, for experiment 2. Pharmacokinetic parameters for rapamycin after administration of 5 daily doses differed significantly from those after administration of 1 dose. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results indicated that oral administration of low-dose (0.1 mg/kg) rapamycin to healthy dogs achieved blood concentrations measured in nanograms per milliliter. The optimal dose and administration frequency of rapamcyin required to achieve therapeutic effects in tumor-bearing dogs, as well as toxicity after chronic dosing, need to be determined.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the pharmacokinetics of orally administered rapamycin in healthy dogs. ANIMALS: 5 healthy purpose-bred hounds. PROCEDURES: The study consisted of 2 experiments. In experiment 1, each dog received rapamycin (0.1 mg/kg, PO) once; blood samples were obtained immediately before and at 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 6, 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours after administration. In experiment 2, each dog received rapamycin (0.1 mg/kg, PO) once daily for 5 days; blood samples were obtained immediately before and at 3, 6, 24, 27, 30, 48, 51, 54, 72, 75, 78, 96, 96.5, 97, 98, 100, 102, 108, 120, 144, and 168 hours after the first dose. Blood rapamycin concentration was determined by a validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry assay. Pharmacokinetic parameters were determined by compartmental and noncompartmental analyses. RESULTS: Mean ± SD blood rapamycin terminal half-life, area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 48 hours after dosing, and maximum concentration were 38.7 ± 12.7 h, 140 ± 23.9 ng•h/mL, and 8.39 ± 1.73 ng/mL, respectively, for experiment 1, and 99.5 ± 89.5 h, 126 ± 27.1 ng•h/mL, and 5.49 ± 1.99 ng/mL, respectively, for experiment 2. Pharmacokinetic parameters for rapamycin after administration of 5 daily doses differed significantly from those after administration of 1 dose. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results indicated that oral administration of low-dose (0.1 mg/kg) rapamycin to healthy dogs achieved blood concentrations measured in nanograms per milliliter. The optimal dose and administration frequency of rapamcyin required to achieve therapeutic effects in tumor-bearing dogs, as well as toxicity after chronic dosing, need to be determined.
Authors: D S Collier; R Calne; S Thiru; S Lim; S G Pollard; P Barron; M Da Costa; D J White Journal: Transplant Proc Date: 1990-08 Impact factor: 1.066
Authors: Markus Guba; Philipp von Breitenbuch; Markus Steinbauer; Gudrun Koehl; Stefanie Flegel; Matthias Hornung; Christiane J Bruns; Carl Zuelke; Stefan Farkas; Matthias Anthuber; Karl-Walter Jauch; Edward K Geissler Journal: Nat Med Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Haiqing Yi; Elizabeth D Brooks; Beth L Thurberg; John C Fyfe; Priya S Kishnani; Baodong Sun Journal: J Mol Med (Berl) Date: 2014-02-08 Impact factor: 4.599
Authors: D Capone; A Gentile; G Polichetti; S Federico; M Sabbatini; A Acampora; V Basile; M Pieri; G Tarantino Journal: Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol Date: 2008 Apr-Jun Impact factor: 3.219
Authors: J Martin-Liberal; M Gil-Martín; M Sáinz-Jaspeado; N Gonzalo; R Rigo; H Colom; C Muñoz; O M Tirado; X García del Muro Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2014-07-08 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Silvan R Urfer; Tammi L Kaeberlein; Susan Mailheau; Philip J Bergman; Kate E Creevy; Daniel E L Promislow; Matt Kaeberlein Journal: Geroscience Date: 2017-04-03 Impact factor: 7.713
Authors: James J Morrow; Arnulfo Mendoza; Allyson Koyen; Michael M Lizardo; Ling Ren; Timothy J Waybright; Ryan J Hansen; Daniel L Gustafson; Ming Zhou; Timothy M Fan; Peter C Scacheri; Chand Khanna Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-06-24 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Amy K LeBlanc; Timothy M Fan; Christina N Mazcko; Aswini Cherukuri; Erika P Berger; William C Kisseberth; Megan E Brown; Susan E Lana; Kristen Weishaar; Brian K Flesner; Jeffrey N Bryan; David M Vail; Jenna H Burton; Jennifer L Willcox; Anthony J Mutsaers; J Paul Woods; Nicole C Northrup; Corey Saba; Kaitlin M Curran; Haley Leeper; Heather Wilson-Robles; Brandan G Wustefeld-Janssens; Stephanie Lindley; Annette N Smith; Nikolaos Dervisis; Shawna Klahn; Mary Lynn Higginbotham; Raelene M Wouda; Erika Krick; Jennifer A Mahoney; Cheryl A London; Lisa G Barber; Cheryl E Balkman; Angela L McCleary-Wheeler; Steven E Suter; Olya Martin; Antonella Borgatti; Kristine Burgess; Michael O Childress; Janean L Fidel; Sara D Allstadt; Daniel L Gustafson; Laura E Selmic; Chand Khanna Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2021-03-22 Impact factor: 13.801