4.7 Article

Pharmacokinetic study of single and multiple oral administration of glutamine in healthy Beagles

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PHARMACOLOGY
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.1014474

关键词

glutamine tablets; pharmacokinetics; multiple administration; single administration; Beagles

资金

  1. Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institution (PAPD)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the pharmacokinetics of orally administered glutamine tablets in Beagles. The results showed a linear relationship between dosage and certain pharmacokinetic parameters. Glutamine tablets were quickly absorbed and did not accumulate in Beagles after long-term administration.
Glutamine is an amino acid that is mainly used for the treatment of gastrointestinal diseases in clinic, but there is a lack of such medicine in veterinary clinic, and its research in dogs has never been seen. This study aimed to investigate the pharmacokinetics of single and multiple administration of glutamine (Gln) tablets in Beagles. Twenty-four healthy Beagles were randomly selected for the pharmacokinetic study of a single dose of low (120 mg/kg), medium (240 mg/kg), and high (360 mg/kg) Gln tablets. After 7 days of washout period, six Beagles in the medium group were selected for a multiple-dose pharmacokinetic study, 240 mg/kg twice a day for 7 days. The Gln concentration in plasma was determined by a validated UPLC-MS/MS method. The results of single oral administration of different doses of Gln tablets showed that C-max, AUC(0 & RARR;t), AUC(0 & RARR;& PROP;) had a certain linear relationship with the dosage. T-tests were performed for single and multiple administration of T-max, C-max, t(1/2 lambda z), AUC(0 & RARR;t), and AUC(0 & RARR;& PROP;), and the results showed no significant differences (p > 0.05). Therefore, Gln tablets were absorbed quickly by oral administration, and there was no accumulation in Beagles after 7 days of administration.

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

4.7
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