Plasma disposition and faecal excretion of eprinomectin following topical and subcutaneous administration in non-lactating dairy cattle

Abstract

Subcutaneous administration of EPM generated higher plasma concentrations and greater plasma availability compared with topical administration in non-lactating cattle. Although the S/C route provides higher faecal concentrations, the longer faecal persistence of EPM following topical administration may result in more persistent efficacy preventing establishment of incoming nematode larvae in cattle.

Injectable eprinomectin for cattle: Tick efficacy and pharmacokinetics

“…C max (47.15 ± 22.20 ng/ml) and T max (1.33 ± 0.492 days) obtained in this study were similar to those obtained by Baoliang et al, 2006 (C max (7,354 ng day ml −1 ) and Aksit et al, 2016 (7,101.6 ng day ml −1 ) and similar to those obtained by Alvinerie et al, 1999 (5,736 ng day ml −1 ) after topical application. Our results do not corroborate those reported by Baoliang et al, 2006 andAksit et al, 2016 which suggest that the injectable route generates an increase in bioavailability in the case of EPM compared with the topical route. Pharmacokinetics of avermectins are known to be influenced by the route of administration (Lanusse et al, 1997), but are also affected by the formulation (Shargel, Wu-Pong, & Yu, 2004), which may explain the differences found in our study.…”

“…C max (47.15 ± 22.20 ng/ml) and T max (1.33 ± 0.492 days) obtained in this study were similar to those obtained by Baoliang et al, ( C max = 44.0 ± 24.2 ng/ml and T max = 1.62 ± 0.80 days) and Aksit et al, ( C max = 59.7 ± 12.90 ng/ml and T max = 1.30 ± 0.27 days). However, AUC (5,473.92 ng day ml −1 ) values were lower than those obtained by Baoling et al, (7,354 ng day ml −1 ) and Aksit et al, (7,101.6 ng day ml −1 ) and similar to those obtained by Alvinerie et al, (5,736 ng day ml −1 ) after topical application. Our results do not corroborate those reported by Baoliang et al, and Aksit et al, which suggest that the injectable route generates an increase in bioavailability in the case of EPM compared with the topical route.…”

“…The use of subcutaneous EPM has already been reported, and its pharmacokinetic parameters described by Baoling et al, and Aksit, Korkut, Aksoz, & Gokbulut, . C max (47.15 ± 22.20 ng/ml) and T max (1.33 ± 0.492 days) obtained in this study were similar to those obtained by Baoliang et al, ( C max = 44.0 ± 24.2 ng/ml and T max = 1.62 ± 0.80 days) and Aksit et al, ( C max = 59.7 ± 12.90 ng/ml and T max = 1.30 ± 0.27 days).…”

“…The use of subcutaneous EPM has already been reported, and its pharmacokinetic parameters described by Baoling et al, and Aksit, Korkut, Aksoz, & Gokbulut, . C max (47.15 ± 22.20 ng/ml) and T max (1.33 ± 0.492 days) obtained in this study were similar to those obtained by Baoliang et al, ( C max = 44.0 ± 24.2 ng/ml and T max = 1.62 ± 0.80 days) and Aksit et al, ( C max = 59.7 ± 12.90 ng/ml and T max = 1.30 ± 0.27 days). However, AUC (5,473.92 ng day ml −1 ) values were lower than those obtained by Baoling et al, (7,354 ng day ml −1 ) and Aksit et al, (7,101.6 ng day ml −1 ) and similar to those obtained by Alvinerie et al, (5,736 ng day ml −1 ) after topical application.…”

“…The use of subcutaneous EPM has already been reported, and its pharmacokinetic parameters described by Baoling et al, 2006 andAksit, Korkut, Aksoz, &Gokbulut, 2016. C max (47.15 ± 22.20 ng/ml) and T max (1.33 ± 0.492 days) obtained in this study were similar to those obtained by Baoliang et al, 2006 (C max (7,354 ng day ml −1 ) and Aksit et al, 2016 (7,101.6 ng day ml −1 ) and similar to those obtained by Alvinerie et al, 1999 (5,736 ng day ml −1 ) after topical application.…”