Pharmacokinetics of flunixin meglumine in mature swine after intravenous, intramuscular and oral administration

BMC Veterinary Research

Johann F Coetzee²  Kenneth J Stalder⁴  Suzanne T Millman³  Suzanne Sander²  Larry Wulf²  Butch Kukanich¹  Anna K Johnson⁴  Locke A Karriker⁵  Monique D Pairis-Garcia⁴ 

[1] Department of Anatomy and Physiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA;Pharmacology Analytical Support Service, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA;Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine and Biomedical Science, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA;Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA;Swine Medicine Education Center, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA

关键词: Oral bioavailability;    NSAIDs;    Pharmacokinetics;    Flunixin meglumine;    Lameness;    Gilt;    Swine;   

Others  :  1119473
DOI  :  10.1186/1746-6148-9-165

 received in 2013-03-26, accepted in 2013-08-06,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

The purpose of this study was to determine intravenous (IV), intramuscular (IM) and oral (PO) FM PK in mature swine. Appropriate pain management for lameness in swine is a critical control point for veterinarians and producers, but science-based guidance on optimal housing, management and treatment of lameness is deficient. Six mature swine (121–168 kg) were administered an IV, IM, or PO dose of flunixin meglumine at a target dose of 2.2 mg/kg in a cross-over design with a 10 day washout period between treatments. Plasma samples collected up to 48 hours post-administration were analyzed by high pressure liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS) followed by non-compartmental pharmacokinetic analysis.

Results

No adverse effects were observed with flunixin meglumine administration for all routes. Flunixin meglumine was administered at an actual mean dose of 2.21 mg/kg (range: 2.05-2.48 mg/kg) IV, IM and PO. A mean peak plasma concentration (C_MAX) for IM and PO administration was 3748 ng/ml (range: 2749–6004 ng/ml) and 946 ng/ml (range: 554–1593 ng/ml), respectively. T_MAX was recorded at 1.00 hour (range: 0.50-2.00 hours) and 0.61 hours (range: 0.17-2.00 hours) after PO and IM administration. Half-life (T ½ λ_z) for IV, IM and PO administration was 6.29 hours (range: 4.84-8.34 hours), 7.49 hours (range: 5.55-12.98 hours) and 7.08 hours (range: 5.29-9.15 hours) respectively. In comparison, bioavailability (F) for PO administration was 22% (range: 11-44%) compared to IM F at 76% (range: 54-92%).

Conclusions

The results of the present study suggest that FM oral administration is not the most effective administration route for mature swine when compared to IV and IM. Lower F and Cmax of PO-FM in comparison to IM-FM suggest that PO-FM is less likely to be an effective therapeutic administration route.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Pairis-Garcia et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Anil S, Anil L, Deen J: Effect of lameness on sow longevity. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2009, 235(6):734-738.
• [2]Engblom L, Lundeheim N, Standberg E, Schneider M, Dalin AM: Factors affecting length of productive life in Swedish commercial sows. J Anim Sci 2008, 86(2):432-441.
• [3]Knauer M, Stalder KJ, Karriker L, Baas TJ, Johnson C, Serenius T, Layman L, Mckean JD: A descriptive survey of lesions from cull sows harvested at two Midwestern U.S. facilities. Prev Vet Med 2007, 82(3–4):198-212.
• [4]Wells GAH: Locomotor disorders of the pig. In Pract 1984, 6(2):43-53.
• [5]Elmore M, Garner J, Johnson A, Richert B, Pajor E: A flooring comparison: The impact of rubber mats on the health, behavior, and welfare of group-housed sows at breeding. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2010, 123(1–2):7-15.
• [6]Schenk E, Merchant-Forde J, Lay D: Sow lameness and longevity. http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/36022000/Sow%20Lameness%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf webcite
• [7]Stalder KJ, Knauer M, Baas TJ, Rothschild MF, Mabry JW: Sow longevity. Pig News Inf 2004, 25(2):52N-74N.
• [8]Main DC, Clegg JJ, Spatz A, Green LE: Repeatability of a lameness scoring system for finishing pigs. Vet Rec 2000, 147(20):574-576.
• [9]Smith B: Lameness in pigs associated with foot and limb disorders. In Pract 1988, 10(3):113-117.
• [10]Haley D: Pain relief in pigs. Ontario: Kirkton-Woodham Community Centre; 2010:1-27. [In Proceedings of the Centralia Swine Research Update Conference: 27 January, 2010] Proceedings available on-line at http://www.centraliaswineresearch.ca/proceedings/2010/csru2010proceedings.pdf webcite last accessed August 12, 2013
• [11]US Food and Drug Administration. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/Products/ApprovedAnimalDrugProducts/FOIADrugSummaries/UCM181537.pdf webcite
• [12]Weary DM, Niel L, Flower C, Fraser D: Identifying and preventing pain in animals. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2006, 100:64-76.
• [13]Houdeshell JW, Hennessey PW: A new non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory analgesic for horses. J Equine Med Surg 1977, 1(2):57-63.
• [14]Hwang Y, Yun H: Effects of acute hepatic and renal failure on pharmacokinetics of flunixin meglumine in rats. Exp Anim 2011, 60(2):187-191.
• [15]Hanson P, Maddison J: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and chondroprotective agents. In Small Animal Clinical Pharmacology. 2nd edition. Edited by Maddison J, Page SW, Church BD. China: Elsevier Ltd; 2008:287-308.
• [16]Buur JL, Baynes RE, Smith G, Riviere JE: Pharmacokinetics of flunixin meglumine in swine after intravenous dosing. J Vet Pharmacol Ther 2006, 29(5):437-440.
• [17]Intervet Schering Plough. http://sploughus.naccvp.com/index.php?u=country&p=msds&prodnum=1047251&id=1047251&m=product_basic_view webcite
• [18]Toutain PL, Autefage A, Legrand C, Alvinerie M: Plasma concentrations and therapeutic efficacy of phenylbutazone and flunixin meglumine in the horse: pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modelling. J Vet Pharmacol Ther 1994, 17(6):459-469.
• [19]Jaroszewski J, Jedziniak P, Markiewicz W, Grabowski T, Chrostowska M, Szprengier-Juzkiewicz T: Pharmacokinetics of flunixin in mature heifer following multiple intravenous administration. Pol J Vet Sci 2008, 11(3):199-203.
• [20]Welsh EM, McKellar QA, Nolan AM: The pharmacokinetics of flunixin meglumine in the sheep. J Vet Pharmacol Ther 1993, 16(2):181-188.
• [21]Konigsson K, Torneke K, Engeland IV, Odensvik K, Kindahl H: Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamic effects of flunixin after intravenous, intramuscular and oral administration to dairy goats. Acta Vet Scand 2003, 44(3–4):153-161.
• [22]Musser JMB: Pharmacokinetics of flunixin in chickens after oral and intravenous administration. J Vet Pharmacol Ther 2009, 33(3):312-314.
• [23]Taylor PM, Lees P, Reynoldson J, Stodulski G, Jefferies R: Pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of flunixin in the cat: a preliminary study. Vet Rec 1991, 129(11):258.
• [24]Yu ZG, Jiang CM, Guo YG, Hu YY, Chen DJ: Pharmacokinetics of flunixin meglumine after intravenous and intramuscular administration in pigs. Agri Sci China 2007, 6(11):1396-1401.
• [25]Trim C, Braun C: Anesthetic agents and complications of Vietnamese potbellied pigs: 27 cases. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2011, 239(1):114-121.
• [26]Jean G, Anderson D: Anesthesia and Surgical Procedures in Swine. In Diseases of Swine. 9th edition. Edited by Straw B, Zimmerman J, D’Allaire S, Taylor D. Australia: Blackwell Publishing; 2006:1109.
• [27]Brown DE, King GE, Hacker RR: Polyurethane indwelling catheters for piglets. J Anim Sci 1973, 37:303-304.
• [28]Muirhead MR: Blood sampling in pigs. Pract 1981, 3(5):16-20.
• [29]Jiang CM, Yu ZG, Guo YG, Chen DJ, Hu YY: Study on pharmacokinetics of flunixin meglumine after intravenous, intramuscular and oral administration in broilers. J Nanjing Agric Univ 2006, 29:107-110.
• [30]Soma LR, Behrend E, Rudy J, Sweeny RW: Disposition and excretion of flunixin meglumine in horses. Am J Vet Res 1998, 49(11):1894-1898.
• [31]Pellegrini-Masini A, Poppenga RH, Sweeney RW: Disposition of flunixin meglumine injectable preparation administered orally to healthy horses. J Vet Pharmacol Ther 2004, 27(3):183-186.
• [32]Bioportal. http://bioportal.bioontology.org/ontologies/46089/?p=terms&conceptid=obo%3AOBI_0001180 webcite
• [33]Lees P, Higgins AJ: Clinical pharmacology and therapeutic uses of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the horse. Equine Vet J 1985, 17(2):83-96.
• [34]Navidi W: Poisson regression and the case-crossover design: similarities and differences. Commun Stat -Theory Methods 2008, 37(2):213-220.
• [35]Gibaldi M, Perrier D: Non compartmental analysis based on statistical moment theory. In Pharmacokinetics. 2nd edition. Edited by Swarbrick J. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc; 1982:409-417.