4.1 Article

Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationship of enrofloxacin against Aeromonas hydrophila in crucian carp (Carassius auratus gibelio)

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jvp.12678

关键词

A. hydrophila; crucian carp; enrofloxacin; pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamics model; pharmacokinetics

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31502125]
  2. Major Science and Technology Projects of Guangdong province [2017B020231001]
  3. National Agricultural Product Quality Safety Risk Assessment Project [GJFP201700902]
  4. Project of Science and Technology of Guangdong Province [2017B030314171]
  5. Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province [2015A030310086]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The pharmacokinetic (PK) properties of enrofloxacin (ENR) and its metabolite ciprofloxacin (CIP) were investigated in crucian carp following oral administration at different dose levels (5, 10, 20, 40 mg/kg body weight). The disposition kinetics of ENR was found to be linear over the dose range studied. Serum half-lives ranged from 64.56 to 72.68 hr. The in vitro and ex vivo activities of ENR in serum against a pathogenic strain of Aeromonas hydrophila were determined. In vitro and ex vivo bactericidal activity of ENR was concentration dependent. Dosing of 10 mg/kg resulted in an AUC/minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) ratio of 368.92 hr and a C-max/MIC ratio of 7.23, respectively, against A. hydrophila 147 (MIC = 0.48 mu g/ml), indicating a likely high level of effectiveness in clinical infections caused by A. hydrophila with MIC value <= 0.48 mu g/ml. Modeling of ex vivo growth inhibition data to the sigmoid Emax equation provided the values of AUC(24 hr)/MIC required to produce bacteriostasis, bactericidal activity, and elimination of bacteria, these values were 21.70, 53.01, and 125.21 hr, respectively. These findings in conjunction with MIC90 data suggested that ENR at the dose of 7.81 mg/kg predicted a positive clinical outcome and minimize the risk of emergence of resistance.

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