Pharmacokinetics, bioavailability and dosage regimen of sulphadiazine (SDZ) in camels (Camelus dromedarius)

Abstract

The pharmacokinetics of sulphadiazine (SDZ) (100 mg/kg, body weight) were investigated in six camels (Camelus dromedarius) after intravenous (i.v.) and oral (p.o.) administration. Following i.v. administration, the overall elimination rate constant (beta) was 0.029 +/- 0.001/h and the half-life (t1/2beta) was 23.14 +/- 1.06 h. The apparent volume of distribution (Vd(area)) was 0.790 +/- 0.075 L/kg and the total body clearance (ClB) was 23.29 +/- 2.50 mL/h/kg. After p.o. administration, SDZ reached a peak plasma concentration (Cmax(cal.)) of 62.93 +/- 2.79 microg/mL at a post injection time of (Tmax(cal.)) 22.98 +/- 0.83 h. The elimination half-life was 19.79 +/- 1.22 h, not significantly different from that obtained by the i.v. route. The mean absorption rate constant (Ka) was 0.056 +/- 0.002 h(-1) and the mean absorption half-life (t1/2Ka) was 12.33 +/- 0.37 h. The mean availability (F) of sulphadiazine was 88.2 +/- 6.2%. To achieve and maintain therapeutically satisfactory plasma SDZ levels of > or = 50 microg/mL, the priming and maintenance doses would be 80 mg/kg and 40 mg/kg intravenously and 90 mg/kg and 45 mg/kg orally, respectively, to be repeated at 24 h intervals.

Pharmacokinetics and bioavailability of sulfadiazine and trimethoprim (trimazin 30%) after oral administration in non‐fasted young pigs

“…This is in accordance with other pharmacokinetic data about combinations of sulfonamides and TMP (Nielsen & Gyrd‐Hansen, 1994). The oral bioavailability of SDA and TMP have been calculated for a number of species, such as pigs (Nielsen & Gyrd‐Hansen, 1994; Luther, 1979), cattle (Luther, 1979), chickens (Löscher et al ., 1990), horses (Van Duijkeren et al ., 1994), camels (Kumar et al ., 1998) and Japanese quails (Lashev & Mihailov, 1994). With the exception of the horse, SDA and TMP are well absorbed in most animal species.…”

“…Also bacterial resistance to SDA–TPM combinations is increasingly seen for some bacterial species (Salmon et al ., 1995). The pharmacokinetic profile for SDA and TMP has been described in chickens (Löscher et al ., 1990) , camels (Kumar et al ., 1998), cattle (Clarke et al ., 1989), donkeys (Oukessou & Alsouss, 1998), horses (Brown et al ., 1983; Van Duijkeren et al ., 1994), dogs (Sigel et al ., 1981), Japanese quails (Lashev & Mihailov, 1994), carp (Nouws et al ., 1993) and pigs (Søli et al ., 1990; Nielsen & Gyrd‐Hansen, 1994; Garwacki et al ., 1996). The aim of this study was to determine the oral bioavailability and pharmacokinetics of SDA and TMP after oral administration of a new commercial formula (Trimazin 30%, Kela N.V., Hoogstraten, Belgium) in young unfasted, healthy pigs.…”

Comparative Pharmacokinetic of Three Sulfadiazine Suspensions by Oral Administration in Chickens

“…The pharmacokinetic profile of SDA and TMP used together has been reported for chicken (Löscher et al, 1990;Batzias et al, 2000;Baert et al, 2003) and ostrich (Abu-Basha et al, 2009). Studies in other species such as swine (Søli et al, 1990;Nielsen & Gyrd-Hansen, 1994;Garwacki et al, 1996;Baert et al, 2001), cattle , camel (Kumar et al, 1998), horse (Brown et al, 1983;, dog (Sigel et al, 1981), donkey (Oukessou et al, 1998), Japanese quail (Lashev et al, 1994) and carp (Nouws et al, 1993) have also been performed. All studies reported a higher volume of distribution (V d ) or clearance (Cl), and a substantially shorter T 1/2 for TMP compared with SDA.…”