4.5 Article

Comparison of Systemic and Otic Administration of Ofloxacin

期刊

LARYNGOSCOPE
卷 120, 期 10, 页码 2083-2088

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/lary.21088

关键词

Otitis media; antibiotics; systemic; ototopical; ofloxacin

资金

  1. Department of Otolaryngology HNS, UT Southwestern, Dallas, TX, U.S.A.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To assess the feasibility of delivering ofloxacin across the intact tympanic membrane; to compare middle ear bioavailability of ofloxacin after otic and systemic administrations; to determine distribution of otically delivered ofloxacin to other tissues. Study Design: A prospective, controlled animal study. Methods: Rats underwent surgery wherein the middle ear cavity was opened and filled with saline. An equivalent amount of ofloxacin was delivered intraperitoneally or into the external ear canal. Saline within the middle ear was sampled and completely replaced in 15-minute intervals for 3 hours. Blood was collected twice after the initial application of ofloxacin for high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Animals were sacrificed 3 hours after the initial addition of ofloxacin; the temporal bones were harvested for histological analysis; urine and colon mucosa were collected for HPLC analysis. Results: Both systemic and otic applications led to a comparable accumulation of ofloxacin in the middle ear over the 3-hour period after the initial administration. The pharmacokinetics of ofloxacin penetration into the middle ear was sporadic and subject-dependent. Both methods of administration led to drug accumulation in blood serum, urine, and colonic mucosa. Conclusions: Topical application of ofloxacin to the intact tympanic membrane allows for drug penetration into the middle ear space. Similar middle ear ofloxacin levels could be achieved with systemic and topic applications, but drug concentrations were inconsistent. The accumulation of ofloxacin in other tissues suggests applications designed to be ototopical may also result in systemic absorption.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据