Comparative Pharmacokinetics of Levofloxacin in Healthy and Renal Damaged Muscovy Ducks following Intravenous and Oral Administration

Abstract

The pharmacokinetics aspects of levofloxacin were studied in healthy and experimentally renal damaged Muscovy ducks after single intravenous (IV) and oral (PO) dose of 10 mg kg−1 bwt. Following IV administration, elimination half-life (t 1/2(β)) and mean residence time (MRT) were longer in renal damaged ducks than in healthy ones. Total clearance (Cltot) in renal damaged ducks (0.20 L kg−1 h−1) was significantly lower as compared to that in healthy ones (0.41 L kg−1 h−1). Following PO administration, the peak serum concentration (C max) was higher in renal damaged than in healthy ducks and was achieved at maximum time (t max) of 2.47 and 2.05 h, respectively. The drug was eliminated (t 1/2(el)) at a significant slower rate (3.94 h) in renal damaged than in healthy ducks (2.89 h). The pharmacokinetic profile of levofloxacin is altered in renal damaged ducks due to the increased serum levofloxacin concentrations compared with that in clinically healthy ducks. Oral administration of levofloxacin at 10 mg kg−1 bwt may be highly efficacious against susceptible bacteria in ducks. Also, the dose of levofloxacin should be reduced in renal damaged ducks. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic integration revealed significantly higher values for C max/MIC and AUC/MIC ratios in renal damaged ducks than in healthy ones, indicating the excellent pharmacokinetic characteristics of levofloxacin in renal damaged ducks.

Pharmacokinetics and tissue residue of enrofloxacin in healthy,Eimeria-infected broiler chickens and those pre-treated with amprolium and toltrazuril

“…This variation may be attributed to the different dosage used 10 mg/kg in the current study compared to 5 mg/kg in the other studies. On the other hand, Vd ss in the current study was higher than other fluoroquinolones as levofloxacin in quails 1.25 L/Kg [34], Muscovy ducks 1.37 L/Kg [35], turkeys 1.31 L/Kg [36] and difloxacin in quails 1.54 L/Kg [37].…”

Pharmacokinetic profiles of levofloxacin after intravenous, intramuscular and subcutaneous administration to rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus)

“…The 5 mg/kg dose used in this study was based on the dose used previously in a levofloxacin study involving broiler chicken [16]. This dose is within the range of doses previously used in other mammalian and bird species [10,15,17,18,31]; a dose associated with reduced risks of side effects. Fluoroquinolones are reported to cause tendon damage, seizures, diarrhea in humans, and blindness in cats [4], and Madsen et al [11] reported side effects, including vomiting, soft feces, and depression, after I/V administration of 15 mg/kg of levofloxacin in dogs.…”

“…Levofloxacin, a third-generation fluoroquinolone, is active against a wide range of Grampositive and Gram-negative microorganisms and has improved activity, compared to older fluoroquinolones, against streptococci and anaerobes [6,8,9]. The pharmacokinetics (PKs) of levofloxacin has already been established in several domesticated mammalian pets [7,10,11], non-pets [12][13][14], and birds [15][16][17][18]. Moreover, there are several research papers published in recent years that show increased interest in levofloxacin having potential application as an off-label drug for some pet animals (dogs).…”

Pharmacokinetics of danofloxacin after single oral and intravenous administration in non‐laying hens

“…However, relatively lower oral bioavailabilities were reported in ducks, common pheasant, guinea fowls, Japanese quails, and chukar partridge (89.26%, 83.5%, 82.3%, 79.46%, and 47.62%, respectively; Corum et al, 2019; Dimitrova et al, 2014; Goudah & Mouneir, 2009). Meanwhile, other poultry species showed relatively low bioavailability, ranging from 69.01% to 79.89%, when orally given levofloxacin (Aboubakr, 2012; Aboubakr et al, 2014; Aboubakr & Soliman, 2014). The oral bioavailability of another fluoroquinolone (difloxacin) was reported as 84.4% and 86.2% in quails and broilers, respectively (Abo El‐Ela et al, 2014; Aboubakr & Elbadawy, 2019).…”