4.4 Article

Pharmacokinetics of the Sri Lankan hump-nosed pit viper (Hypnale hypnale) venom following intravenous and intramuscular injections of the venom into rabbits

期刊

TOXICON
卷 79, 期 -, 页码 37-44

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.toxicon.2013.12.011

关键词

Hypnale hypnale; Hump-nosed pit viper; Snake envenomation; Venom pharmacokinetics; ELISA; Intramuscular bioavailability

资金

  1. University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia [PV069/2011B, RG076/12BIO]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The knowledge of venom pharmacokinetics is essential to improve the understanding of envenomation pathophysiology. Using a double-sandwich ELISA, this study investigated the pharmacokinetics of the venom of hump-nosed pit viper (Hypnale hypnale) following intravenous and intramuscular injections into rabbits. The pharmacokinetics of the venom injected intravenously fitted a three-compartment model. There is a rapid (t(1/2 pi) = 0.4 h) and a slow (t(1/2 alpha) = 0.8 h) distribution phase, followed by a long elimination phase (t(1/2 beta) = 19.3 h) with a systemic clearance of 6.8 mL h(-1) kg(-1), consistent with the prolonged abnormal hemostasis reported in H. hypnale envenomation. On intramuscular route, multiple peak concentrations observed in the beginning implied a more complex venom absorption and/or distribution pattern. The terminal half-life, volume of distribution by area and systemic clearance of the venom injected intramuscularly were nevertheless not significantly different (p > 0.05) from that of the venom injected intravenously. The intramuscular bioavailability was exceptionally low (F-i.m. = 4%), accountable for the highly varied median lethal doses between intravenous and intramuscular envenomations in animals. The findings indicate that the intramuscular route of administration does not significantly alter the pharmacokinetics of H. hypnale venom although it significantly reduces the systemic bioavailability of the venom. (C) 2014 Elsevier 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

4.4
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