4.7 Article

Bioavailability and Efficacy of Levofloxacin against Francisella tularensis in the Common Marmoset (Callithrix jacchus)

期刊

ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 54, 期 9, 页码 3922-3926

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00390-10

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases [N01-AI-30062]
  2. Health Protection Agency (HPA), Porton Down, United Kingdom
  3. Medical Research Council [G9900991B] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pharmacokinetic and efficacy studies with levofloxacin were performed in the common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) model of inhalational tularemia. Plasma levofloxacin pharmacokinetics were determined in six animals in separate single-dose and multidose studies. Plasma drug concentrations were analyzed using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry-electrospray ionization. On day 7 of a twice-daily dosing regimen of 40 mg/kg, the levofloxacin half-life, maximum concentration, and area under the curve in marmoset plasma were 2.3 h, 20.9 mu g/ml, and 81.4 mu g/liter/h, respectively. An efficacy study was undertaken using eight treated and two untreated control animals. Marmosets were challenged with a mean of 1.5 x 10(2) CFU of Francisella tularensis by the airborne route. Treated animals were administered 16.5 mg/kg levofloxacin by mouth twice daily, based on the pharmacokinetic parameters, beginning 24 h after challenge. Control animals had a raised core body temperature by 57 h postchallenge and died from infection by day 5. All of the other animals survived, remained afebrile, and lacked overt clinical signs. No bacteria were recovered from the organs of these animals at postmortem after culling at day 24 postchallenge. In conclusion, postexposure prophylaxis with orally administered levofloxacin was efficacious against acute inhalational tularemia in the common marmoset. The marmoset appears to be an appropriate animal model for the evaluation of postexposure therapies.

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