4.2 Article

Flubendazole in cystic echinococcosis therapy: Pharmaco-parasitological evaluation in mice

期刊

PARASITOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
卷 58, 期 4, 页码 354-358

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.parint.2009.07.006

关键词

Cyclodextrins; Cystic echinococcosis; Flubendazole

资金

  1. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas (CONICET)
  2. Agencia Nacional de Promocion Cientifica y Tecnica (ANPCyT)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cystic echinococcosis (CE) caused by the parasite Echinococcus granulosus is an important public health problem worldwide. Flubendazole has shown poor in vivo efficacy against CE in humans and mice. However, flubendazole causes marked in vitro damage on E. granulosus protoscoleces. The goals of the current work were: a) to compare the plasma pharmacokinetic behaviour of flubendazole formulated as a hydroxipropyl-beta-cyclodextrin aqueous solution or as a carboxymethyl celullose suspension, both given by the oral route to mice, b) to compare flubendazole clinical efficacy in secondary CE in mice after its administration as both formulations, c) to evaluate the flubendazole-induced morphological changes in hydatid cysts recovered from infected mice treated with both drug formulations. Flubendazole administration as a solution resulted in significantly higher plasma maximum concentration (C-max) and area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) values compared to those obtained after the flubendazole-suspension treatment. This enhanced drug availability correlated with an increased efficacy against secondary CE in mice observed for the flubendazole-solution formulation, while the Suspension formulation did not reach differences with the untreated control group. Similar ultrastructural changes were observed in cysts recovered from flubendazole (both formulations) treated mice after 3, 6 and 9 months of infection, although the damage extension was greater after treatment with the flubendazole-solution formulation. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.2
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