| Literature DB >> 28588496 |
Zhixin Lei1,2, Qianying Liu1,2, Bing Yang1,2, Jincheng Xiong1,2, Kun Li1, Saeed Ahmed2, Liping Hong1, Pin Chen1, Qigai He3, Jiyue Cao1,2.
Abstract
A new, more palatable formulation of 10% enrofloxacin enteric-coated granules was investigated to evaluate the pharmacokinetic effect in plasma, the residue elimination in tissues and the clinical efficacy against Actinobacillus pleuropneumonia (APP) and Mycoplasam suis (MS) in pigs. In this study, the enrofloxacin concentrations in plasma and tissues were detected using high-performance liquid chromatography with phosphate buffer (pH = 3) and acetonitrile. The pharmacokinetics and elimination of enrofloxacin enteric-coated granules were performed after oral administration at a single dose of 10 mg/kg body weight (bw) and 5 mg/kg twice per day for 5 consecutive days, respectively. The in vivo antibacterial efficacy and clinical effectiveness of enrofloxacin enteric-coated granules against APP and MS were assayed at 2.5, 5, 10 mg/kg, compared with tiamulin (8 mg/kg) based on establishment of APP and MS infection models. 56 APP strains were selected and tested for in vitro antibacterial activity of enrofloxacin enteric-coated granules. The main parameters of elimination half-life (t1/2β), Tmax, and area under the curve (AUC) were 14.99 ± 4.19, 3.99 ± 0.10, and 38.93 ± 1.52 μg h/ml, respectively, revealing that the enrofloxacin concentration remained high and with a sustainable distribution in plasma. Moreover, the analysis on the evaluation of enrofloxacin and ciprofloxacin in muscle, fat, liver and kidney showed that the recovery were more than 84% recovery in accordance with the veterinary drug residue guidelines of United States pharmacopeia, and the withdrawal periods were 4.28, 3.81, 4.84, and 3.51 days, respectively, suggesting that the withdrawal period was 5 d after oral administration of 5 mg/kg twice per day. The optimal dosage of enrofloxacin enteric-coated granules against APP and MS was 5 mg/kg, with over 90% efficacy, which was significantly different (p < 0.05) to the 2.5 mg/kg group, but not to the 10 mg/kg group or the positive control group (tiamulin). In conclusion, 10% enrofloxacin enteric-coated granules had significant potential for treating APP and MS, and it provided an alternative enrofloxacin palatability formulation.Entities:
Keywords: APP; MS; elimination; enrofloxacin; enteric-coated granules; withdrawal
Year: 2017 PMID: 28588496 PMCID: PMC5440587 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2017.00294
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Pharmacol ISSN: 1663-9812 Impact factor: 5.810
Figure 1The MIC distribution of EEG against 56 .
Figure 2The HPLC method for ENR quantification in plasma. The representative HPLC chromatograms of plasma were shown: (A) blank plasma sample; (B) plasma sample at the LLOQ of 0.05 μg/ml; (C) plasma sample after oral administration of EEG at the point of 1 h; ENR, ENR at the peak time of 13.5 min.
Figure 3The curve of ENR concentration–time in plasma of pigs at a dose of 10 mg/kg after oral administering. ENR in the plasma was determined at 0.083, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 72 h.
The main pharmacokinetic parameters in pigs after a single oral dose of 10% enrofloxacin enteric-coated granules (10 mg/kg.bw).
| t1/2ka | h | 1.76 ± 0.29 |
| t1/2α | h | 2.72 ± 0.27 |
| t1/2β | h | 14.99 ± 4.19 |
| AUC | μg·h/ml | 38.93 ± 1.52 |
| Cmax | μg /ml | 3.38 ± 0.06 |
| Tmax | h | 3.99 ± 0.10 |
t.
Figure 4The HPLC methods for ENR quantification in tissues. The representative HPLC chromatograms of tissues were shown: (A,C,E,G) represent the blank samples in muscle, fat, liver, and kidney, respectively. (B,D,F,H) represent the LLOQ of 0.05 μg/ml in muscle, fat, liver, and kidney, respectively.
Figure 5The ln concentration-time curves of (ENR+CP) in tissues of pigs with regression lines and correlation coefficients at a dose of 5 mg/kg EEG after orally administered twice per day for 5 consecutive days.
The MRL of ENR and CIP in pig tissues at different WDT.
| Muscle | 1 | 242.4 ± 59.4 | 214.6 ± 53.2 | 457.0 | |
| 3 | 74.0 ± 11.5 | 50.4 ± 16.3 | 124.4 | ||
| 5 | 47.7 ± 18.6 | 38.9 ± 9.2 | 86.6 | 100 | |
| 7 | ND | ND | ND | ||
| 9 | ND | ND | ND | ||
| 11 | ND | ND | ND | ||
| 13 | ND | ND | ND | ||
| Fat | 1 | 234.5 ± 53.5 | 188.4 ± 32.9 | 422.9 | |
| 3 | 86.9 ± 11.6 | 71.6 ± 5.8 | 158.5 | ||
| 5 | 53.0 ± 11.9 | 38.0 ± 5.5 | 91.0 | ||
| 7 | <LOD | ND | <LOD | 100 | |
| 9 | ND | ND | ND | ||
| 11 | ND | ND | ND | ||
| 13 | ND | ND | ND | ||
| Liver | 1 | 409.4 ± 55.4 | 252.1 ± 54.1 | 661.5 | |
| 3 | 218.9 ± 29.1 | 197.0 ± 24.2 | 415.9 | ||
| 5 | 99.2 ± 24.3 | 79 ± 11.6 | 178.2 | 200 | |
| 7 | ND | ND | ND | ||
| 9 | ND | ND | ND | ||
| 11 | ND | ND | ND | ||
| 13 | ND | ND | ND | ||
| Kidney | 1 | 367.1 ± 62.5 | 270.9 ± 56.1 | 638.0 | |
| 3 | 248.0 ± 38.4 | 132.7 ± 26.2 | 380.7 | ||
| 5 | 69.1 ± 16.2 | 111.7 ± 12.2 | 180.8 | 300 | |
| 7 | ND | ND | ND | ||
| 9 | ND | ND | ND | ||
| 11 | ND | ND | ND | ||
| 13 | ND | ND | ND |
d, represent day; Total, represent the concentration of ENR + CP;ND, represent no detection.
Summary of the elimination parameters of (ENR+CP) in tissues.
| Muscle | 0.9509 | 1.67 | 4.28 | 100 | |
| Fat | 0.9874 | 1.19 | 3.81 | 100 | |
| Liver | 0.9861 | 2.11 | 4.84 | 200 | |
| Kidney | 0.9945 | 2.20 | 3.51 | 300 |
r, represent correlation coefficient; t.
The treatment efficacy of the 10% EEG against .
| High-dose team | 6 | 60 | 2 | 20 | 1 | 10 | 1 | 10 |
| Middle-dose team | 5 | 50 | 3 | 30 | 1 | 10 | 1 | 10 |
| Low-dose team | 3 | 30 | 2 | 20 | 1 | 10 | 4 | 40 |
| Positive team | 5 | 50 | 3 | 30 | 1 | 10 | 1 | 10 |
| Negative team | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 10 | 9 | 90 |
| Blank | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
N, represent the animal number; R, represent the ratio of N in each assessment group/the total number of each team.
Statistical efficacy results of 10% EEG against .
| High-dose team | 90 | 0 | 20 | 572 |
| Middle-dose team | 90 | 0 | 30 | 556 |
| Low-dose team | 60 | 20 | 60 | 354 |
| Positive team | 90 | 0 | 30 | 557 |
| Negative control | 10 | 50 | 100 | 239 |
| Blank | – | – | – | 710 |
Statistical significances compared with negative team are p < 0.05,
Statistical significances compared with positive team are p < 0.05, ADG, represent average daily gain.
The treatment efficacy of the 10% EEG against .
| High-dose team | 6 | 60 | 2 | 20 | 1 | 10 | 1 | 10 |
| Middle-dose team | 5 | 50 | 3 | 30 | 1 | 10 | 1 | 10 |
| Low-dose team | 3 | 30 | 1 | 10 | 1 | 10 | 5 | 50 |
| Positive team | 5 | 50 | 3 | 30 | 1 | 10 | 1 | 10 |
| Negative team | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 10 | 9 | 90 |
| Blank | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
N, represent the animal number; R, represent the ratio of N in each assessment group/the total number of each team.
Statistical efficacy results of 10% EEG against .
| High-dose team | 90 | 0 | 9 | 832 |
| Middle-dose team | 90 | 0 | 10 | 821 |
| Low-dose team | 50 | 10 | 13 | 648 |
| Positive team | 90 | 0 | 30 | 822 |
| Negative control | 10 | 30 | 23 | 454 |
| Blank | – | – | – | 872 |
Statistical significances compared with negative team are p < 0.05,
Statistical significances compared with positive team are p < 0.05, LLS, represent lung lesion score.