Indian Journal of Animal Research

  • Chief EditorK.M.L. Pathak

  • Print ISSN 0367-6722

  • Online ISSN 0976-0555

  • NAAS Rating 6.50

  • SJR 0.263

  • Impact Factor 0.4 (2024)

Frequency :
Monthly (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December)
Indexing Services :
Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Scopus, AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Indian Journal of Animal Research, volume 35 issue 2 (july to december 2001) : 108 - 111

DISPOSITION KINETICS, DISTRIBUTION AND DOSAGE REGIMEN OF CEFUROXIME IN LACTATING GOATS AFTER INTRAMUSCULAR ADMINISTRATION

Shahid Prawez, M.K. Singh, C. Jayachandran
1Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Bihar Veterinary College. Patna - 800 014, India

  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Prawez Shahid, Singh M.K., Jayachandran C. (2024). DISPOSITION KINETICS, DISTRIBUTION AND DOSAGE REGIMEN OF CEFUROXIME IN LACTATING GOATS AFTER INTRAMUSCULAR ADMINISTRATION. Indian Journal of Animal Research. 35(2): 108 - 111. doi: .

ABSTRACT

The disposition kinetics of cefuroxime after a single i.m. administration of 20 mg/kg in lactating goats showed peak concentration of 18.26±3.17, 0.86±0.28 and 2841±227.5 μg/ml attaining at 20, 45 and 30 min in plasma, milk and urine, respectively. The minimum mean therapeutic concentration (≥1.0 μg/ml) of drug was maintained for around 3 hr in plasma and 12 hr in urine but not in milk. The mean absorption half-life (t½ka), elimination half-life (t½β), area under curve (AUC) and total body clearance (ClB) of cefuroxime in goats were 0.08±0.02 hr, 1.42±0.07 hr, 11.91±0.99 mg L−1 hr and 29.08±2.61 ml kg−1min−1, respectively. Loading (D*) and maintenance (Do) doses of cefuroximc for the treatment of mild to moderate infections (Cp∞min = 0.5 μg/ml) at 6 hr dosage interval are calculated to be approximately 35 and 33 mg/kg, respectively for i.m. route

KEYWORDS

    REFERENCES

    1. Arret, B. et ai. (1971). J. Pharm. Sci. 60 : 1689 -1694.
    2. Baggot, J. O. (1977). Principles of drug disposition in domestic animals. The basis of Veterinary Clinical Pharmacology 1st Edn. w. B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia.
    3. British Pharmacopoeia (1980). Vol-II, Her Magesty's stationary office, University Press, Cambridge. London.
    4. Eley, A. and Greenwood, O. (1981). Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 20 : 331-335.
    5. Eykyn, S . .et al. (1976). Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 9 : 690.
    6. Foord, RD. (1976). Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 9 : 74l.
    7. Gibaldi, M. and Perri/r, O. (1975). Pharmacokinetics. MarcelOekkar, New York.
    8. Gold, B. and Rodriguez, W. J. (1983). Pharmacother. 3 : 82 - 100.
    9. Klein, J.D. et al. (1977). Proc. Royal Soc. Moo. 70 (Suppl. 9) : 198.
    10. Neu, H.C. (1982). Ann. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 22 : 599 - 642.
    11. Notari, RE. (1980). Bio-Pharmaceutics and Clinical Pharmacokinetics. 3rd Edn. Marcel Oekkar Inc., New York.
    12. Simon, H.J. and Jongyin, E. (1970). Appl. Microbiol. 19: 573 - 579.
    13. Soback, S. etal. (1989). J. Vet. Pharmacol. Ther. 12: 87 - 93.
    14. Srivastava, A.K. and Chaudhary, R K. (1999); ICAR short course on "Recent approaches in clinical pharmacokinetics and therapeutic monitoring of drug in farm animals." Oct. 25th to Nov. 3rd. Division of Pharmacology and Toxicology, NRI, lzatnagar.
    15. Quintiliani, R. and Nightingale, C.H. (1978). Ann. Int. Moo. 89 : 650 - 656.
    Reviewed By

    Download Article
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)