Trial reportClinical pharmacokinetics2005
Penetration of orally administered prulifloxacin into human lung tissue.
Trial report in Clinical pharmacokinetics, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Penetration of orally administered prulifloxacin into human prostate tissue.Clinical drug investigation · 2009Trial
- Prulifloxacin: a brief review of its potential in the treatment of acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2007Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the distribution in lung tissue of ulifloxacin, the active metabolite of prulifloxacin, a new once-daily fluoroquinolone administered orally in a single 600mg dose.
designOpen-label, randomised study. PATIENTS: Twenty-seven patients (25 males, 2 females; mean age 65.7 years [range 49-79 years]) with a lung neoplasm requiring lobectomy or pneumonectomy.
methodsPatients were randomly assigned to five treatment groups and received a single oral dose of prulifloxacin 600mg at 2, 4, 6, 12 or 24 hours preoperatively. During surgery, blood and healthy lung (based on macroscopic appearance) samples were collected at the same time. Ulifloxacin concentrations in plasma and lung tissue were determined by a validated reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography assay. Lung tissue ulifloxacin concentrations were adjusted for blood contamination, by measuring haemoglobin in the supernatant of each tissue sample and applying a corrective equation.
resultsUlifloxacin concentration in lung tissue exceeded plasma concentration at every timepoint. Following administration of prulifloxacin 600mg, the overall mean corrected lung/plasma ratio over the 24-hour period was 6.9 (range 1.2-14.1). When sampling intervals were assessed, the corrected lung/plasma ratios were 7.5 (2 hours after dosing), 6.3 (4 hours), 4.3 (6 hours), 7.0 (12 hours) and 9.2 (24 hours). The mean corrected lung/plasma area under the concentration-time curve ratio was 6.3, demonstrating the ability of the drug to penetrate lung tissue and confirming the high exposure of this target tissue to ulifloxacin. However, the limitation of the lung tissue sampling method and the high interpatient variability should be considered. Over the 24-hour period, the concentrations of ulifloxacin in lung tissue were higher than the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values for pathogens frequently involved in community-acquired respiratory tract infections.
conclusionLung tissue penetration data may have a supportive value when considered jointly with MICs and efficacy results. The findings from this lung penetration study could explain the efficacy of once-daily prulifloxacin 600mg observed in clinical trials conducted in patients with exacerbation of chronic bronchitis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
16372826What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.