• 1

    Frank LA, Kunkle GA. Comparison of the efficacy of cefadroxil and generic and proprietary cephalexin in the treatment of pyoderma in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1993; 203:530533.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Toma S, Colombo S, Cornegliani L, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of once-daily cephalexin in canine superficial pyoderma: an open controlled study. J Small Anim Pract 2008; 49:384391.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Chatfield RC, Gingerich DA, Rourke JE, et al. Cefadroxil: a new orally effective cephalosporin antibiotic. Vet Med (Praha) 1984; 79:339346.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Cherni JA, Boucher JF, Skogerboe TL, et al. Comparison of the efficacy of cefpodoxime proxetil and cephalexin in treating bacterial pyoderma in dogs. Int J Appl Res Vet Med 2006; 4:8593.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Brown SA, Boucher JF, Hubbard VL, et al. The comparative plasma pharmacokinetics of intravenous cefpodoxime sodium and oral cefpodoxime proxetil in Beagle dogs. J Vet Pharmacol Ther 2007; 30:320326.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Campbell BG & Rosin E. Effect of food on absorption of cefadroxl and cephalexin in dogs. J Vet Pharmacol Ther 1998; 21:418420.

  • 7

    Carli S, Anfossi P, Villa R, et al. Absorption kinetics and bioavailability of cephalexin in the dog after oral and intramuscular administration. J Vet Pharmacol Ther 1999; 22:308313.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Crosse R, Burt DG. Antibiotic concentration in the serum of dogs and cats following a single oral dose of cephalexin. Vet Rec 1984; 115:106107.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Prados AP, Kreil V, Albarellos G, et al. Metoclopramide modifies oral cephalexin pharmacokinetics in dogs. J Vet Pharmacol Ther 2007; 30:127131.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Rebuelto M, Montoya L, Kreil V, et al. Pharmacokinetics of two once-daily parenteral cephalexin formulations in dogs. J Vet Pharmacol Ther 2005; 28:419423.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Silley P, Brown MP, Gronwall RR, et al. Pharmacokinetics of cephalexin in dogs and cats after oral, subcutaneous, and intramuscular administration. Vet Rec 1988; 122:1517.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Andes D, Craig WA. Animal model pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics: a critical review. Int J Antimicroh Agents 2002; 19:261268.

  • 13

    Drusano GL. Antimicrobial pharmacodynamics: critical interactions of ‘bug and drug’. Nat Rev Microbiol 2004; 2:289300.

  • 14

    Liu P, Muller M & Derendorf H. Rational dosing of antibiotics: the use of plasma concentrations versus tissue concentrations. Int J Antimicroh Agents 2002; 19:285290.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    AliAbadi FS & Lees P. Antibiotic treatment for animals: effect on bacterial population and dosage regimen optimization. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2000; 14:307313.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Bidgood T, Papich MG. Plasma and interstitial fluid pharmacokinetics of enrofloxacin, its metabolite ciprofloxacin, and marbofloxacin after oral administration and a constant rate intravenous infusion in dogs. J Vet Pharmacol Ther 2005; 28:329341.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Bidgood T, Papich MG. Plasma pharmacokinetics and tissue fluid concentrations of meropenem after intravenous and subcutaneous administration in dogs. Am J Vet Res 2002; 63:16221628.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Bidgood T, Papich MG. Comparison of plasma and interstitial fluid concentrations of doxycycline and meropenem following constant rate intravenous infusion in dogs. Am J Vet Res 2003; 64:10401046.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Barza M. Challenges to antibiotic activity in tissue. Clin Infect Dis 1994; 19:910915.

  • 20

    Barza M. Pharmacokinetics of antibiotics in shallow and deep compartments. J Antimicroh Chemother 1993; 31(suppl D):1727.

  • 21

    Cars O & Ogren S. Antibiotic tissue concentrations: methodological aspects and interpretation of results. Scand J Infect Dis Suppl 1985; 44:715.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Cars O. Pharmacokinetics of antibiotics in tissues and tissue fluids: a review. Scand J Infect Dis Suppl 1991; 74:2333.

  • 23

    Nix DE, Goodwin SD, Peloquin CA, et al. Antibiotic tissue penetration and its relevance: models of tissue penetration and their meaning. Antimicroh Agents Chemother 1991; 35:19471952.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Van Etta LL, Peterson LR, Fasching CE, et al. Effect of ratio of surface area to volume on the penetration of antibiotics into extravascular spaces in an in vitro mode. J Infect Dis 1982; 146:423428.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Mouton JW, Theuretzbacher U, Craig WA, et al. Tissue concentrations: do we ever learn? J Antimicroh Chemother 2008; 61:235237.

  • 26

    Bengtsson B, Luthman J, Jacobsson S-O, et al. Distribution of oxytetracycline to tissue cages and granuloma pouches in calves and effect of acute inflammation on distribution to tissue cages. J Vet Pharmacol Ther 1991; 14:385394.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Clarke CR. Tissue-chamber modeling systems—applications in veterinary medicine. J Vet Pharmacol Ther 1989; 12:349368.

  • 28

    Clarke CR, Short CR, Bourne DWA, et al. Subcutaneously implanted tissue chamber—a pharmacokinetic study. J Vet Pharmacol Ther 1989; 12:312321.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29

    McKellar QA, Sanchez Bruni SF, Jones DG. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationships of antimicrobial drugs used in veterinary medicine. J Vet Pharmacol Ther 2004; 27:503514.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30

    Devriese LA, Vancanneyt M, Baele M, et al. Staphylococcus pseudintermedius sp. nov., a coagulase-positive species from animals. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2005; 55:15691573.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31

    Stegemann MR, Passmore CA, Sheringon J, et al. Antimicrobial activity and spectrum of cefovecin, a new extended-spectrum cephalosporin, against pathogens collected from dogs and cats in Europe and North America. Antimicroh Agents Chemother 2006; 50:22862292.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32

    US Pharmacopeia (USP-NF). General chapter on validation on compendial procedures. USP31-NF26. Rockville, Md: US Pharmacopeia, 2008.

  • 33

    Gibaldi M & Perrier D. Pharmacokinetics. 2nd ed. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc, 1982.

  • 34

    Liu P, Müller M, Grant M, et al. Tissue penetration of cefpodoxime and cefixime in healthy subjects. J Clin Pharmacol 2005; 45:564569.

  • 35

    Wise R. The pharmacokinetics of the oral cephalosporins—a review. J Antimicrob Chemother 1990; 26(suppl E):1320.

  • 36

    Turnidge JD. The pharmacodynamics of β-lactams. Clin Infect Dis 1998; 27:1022.

Advertisement

Pharmacokinetics, protein binding, and tissue distribution of orally administered cefpodoxime proxetil and cephalexin in dogs

View More View Less
  • 1 Departments of Molecular Biomedical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27606
  • | 2 Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27606
  • | 3 Departments of Molecular Biomedical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27606

Abstract

Objective—To determine the effect of protein binding on the pharmacokinetics and distribution from plasma to interstitial fluid (ISF) of cephalexin and cefpodoxime proxetil in dogs.

Animals—6 healthy dogs.

Procedures—In a crossover study design, 25 mg of cephalexin/kg or 9.6 mg of cefpodoxime/kg was administered orally. Blood samples were collected before (time 0) and 0.33, 0.66, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, and 24 hours after treatment. An ultrafiltration device was used in vivo to collect ISF at 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, and 24 hours. Plasma and ISF concentrations were analyzed with high-pressure liquid chromatography. Plasma protein binding was measured by use of a microcentrifugation technique.

Results—Mean plasma protein binding for cefpodoxime and cephalexin was 82.6% and 20.8%, respectively. Mean ± SD values for cephalexin in plasma were determined for peak plasma concentration (Cmax, 31.5 ± 11.5 μg/mL), area under the time-concentration curve (AUC, 155.6 ± 29.5 μg•h/mL), and terminal half-life (T½, 4.7 ± 1.2 hours); corresponding values in ISF were 16.3 ± 5.8 μg/mL, 878 ± 21.0 μg•h/mL, and 3.2 ± 0.6 hours, respectively. Mean ± SD values for cefpodoxime in plasma were 33.0 ± 6.9 μg/mL (Cmax), 282.8 ± 44.0 μg•h/mL (AUC), and 5.7 ± 0.9 hours (T1/2); corresponding values in ISF were 4.3 ± 2.0 μg/mL, 575 ± 174 μg•h/mL, and 10.4 ± 3.3 hours, respectively.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Tissue concentration of protein-unbound cefpodoxime was similar to that of the protein-unbound plasma concentration. Cefpodoxime remained in tissues longer than did cephalexin.

Contributor Notes

Dr. Floerchinger was a veterinary student and a Merck-Merial summer scholar at the time of the study.

Supported in part by Pfizer Animal Health, New York, NY.

Dr. Papich has received honoraria for speaking at conferences, payment for consulting, gifts, and research support from Pfizer Animal Health.

Presented in abstract form at the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine Annual Forum, Seattle, 2007.

The authors thank Delta R. Dise for assistance with the drug analysis and Dr. Marilyn N. Martinez for assistance with the statistical calculation of cephalexin pharmacokinetic data.

Address correspondence to Dr. Papich (mark_papich@ncsu.edu).