4.1 Article

Pharmacokinetics of ceftriaxone in Green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) following intravenous and intramuscular administration at two dosages

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jvp.12723

关键词

ceftriaxone; green sea turtles; LC-MS/MS; pharmacokinetics

资金

  1. Kasetsart University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Green sea turtles are widely distributed in tropical and subtropical waters. Adult green sea turtles face many threats, primarily from humans, including injuries from boat propellers, being caught in fishing nets, pollution, poaching, and infectious diseases. To the best of our knowledge, limited pharmacokinetic information to establish suitable therapeutic plans is available for green sea turtles. Therefore, the present study aimed to describe the pharmacokinetic characteristics of ceftriaxone (CEF) in green sea turtles, Chelonia mydas, following single intravenous and intramuscular administrations at two dosages of 10 and 25 mg/kg body weight (b.w.). Blood samples were collected at assigned times up to 96 hr. The plasma concentrations of CEF were measured by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. The concentrations of CEF in the plasma were quantified up to 24 and 48 hr after i.v. and i.m. administrations at dosages of 10 and 25 mg/kg b.w., respectively. The C-max values of CEF were 15.43 +/- 3.71 mu g/ml and 43.48 +/- 4.29 mu g/ml at dosages of 10 and 25 mg/kg, respectively. The AUC(last) values increased in a dose-dependent fashion. The half-life values were 2.89 +/- 0.41 hr and 5.96 +/- 0.26 hr at dosages of 10 and 25 mg/kg b.w, respectively. The absolute i.m. bioavailability was 67% and 108%, and the binding percentage of CEF to plasma protein was ranged from 20% to 29% with an average of 24.6%. Based on the pharmacokinetic data, susceptibility break-point and PK-PD index (T > MIC, 0.2 mu g/ml), i.m. administration of CEF at a dosage of 10 mg/kg b.w. might be appropriate for initiating treatment of susceptible bacterial infections in green sea turtles.

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

4.1
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