Comparative plasma exposure and lung distribution of two human use commercial azithromycin formulations assessed in murine model: A preclinical study

8Citations
Citations of this article
19Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Azithromycin (AZM) therapeutic failure and relapses of patients treated with generic formulations have been observed in clinical practice. The main goal of this research was to compare in a preclinical study the serum exposure and lung tissue concentration of two commercial formulations AZM-based in murine model. The current study involved 264 healthy Balb-C. Mice were divided into two groups (n = 44): animals of Group A (reference formulation -R-) were orally treated with AZM suspension at 10 mg/kg of b.w. Experimental animals of Group B (generic formulation -G-) received identical treatment than Group A with a generic formulation AZM-based. The study was repeated twice as Phase II and III. Serum and lung tissue samples were taken 24 h post treatment. Validated microbiological assay was used to determine the serum pharmacokinetic and lung distribution of AZM. After the pharmacokinetic analysis was observed, a similar serum exposure for both formulations of AZM assayed. In contrast, statistical differences (P < 0.001) were obtained after comparing the concentrations of both formulations in lung tissue, being the values obtained for AUC and Cmax (AZM-R-) +1586 and 122%, respectively, than those obtained for AZM-G- in lung. These differences may indicate large differences on the distribution process of both formulations, which may explain the lack of efficacy/therapeutic failure observed on clinical practice. © 2013 Virginia Rivulgo et al.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Rivulgo, V., Sparo, M., Ceci, M., Fumuso, E., Confalonieri, A., Delpech, G., & Sánchez Bruni, S. F. (2013). Comparative plasma exposure and lung distribution of two human use commercial azithromycin formulations assessed in murine model: A preclinical study. BioMed Research International, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/392010

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free