Comparative Pharmacokinetics of Intravenous and Intramuscular Cefquinome Sulfate Administration in Ducklings and Goslings.

Peng Cheng,Tao Feng,Yang Zhang,Xiaofen Li,Lan Tian,Junwei Wu,Fangjun Cheng,Yangmei Zeng,Haihong Chen,Xing He,Guihua Fu,Liming Zheng,Hongwei Chen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.81.11.873
2020-01-01
American Journal of Veterinary Research
Abstract:OBJECTIVE:To compare the pharmacokinetics of cefquinome sulfate in ducklings and goslings after IV or IM administration of a single dose.ANIMALS:216 healthy Muscovy ducklings (Cairina moschata) and 216 healthy Sichuan white goslings (Anser cygnoides).PROCEDURES:Ducklings and goslings were each randomly assigned to 3 groups (n = 72/group) that received a single dose (2 mg/kg) of injectable cefquinome sulfate administered IV or IM or of injectable cefquinome sulfate suspension administered IM. Blood samples were collected at various points after drug administration (n = 6 birds/time point). Plasma cefquinome concentrations were measured by high-performance liquid chromatography with UV detection, and pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated with a 2-compartment model method.RESULTS:After IV injection, mean distribution half-life of cefquinome was longer in goslings (0.446 hours) than in ducklings (0.019 hours), whereas volume of distribution at steady state was greater (0.432 vs 0.042 L/kg) and elimination half-life was slower (1.737 vs 0.972 hours). After IM administration of injectable cefquinome sulfate, bioavailability of the drug was higher in goslings (113.9%) than in ducklings (67.5%). After IM administration of injectable cefquinome sulfate suspension, bioavailability was also higher in goslings (123.1%) than in ducklings (96.8%), whereas elimination half-life was slower (6.917 vs 1.895 hours, respectively).CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE:In goslings, IV administration of cefquinome resulted in slower distribution and metabolism of the drug than in ducklings and IM administration resulted in higher bioavailability. The delayed-release effect of the injectable cefquinome sulfate suspension when administered IM was observed only in goslings.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?