Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26872361›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Comparison of Active Drug Concentrations in the Pulmonary Epithelial Lining Fluid and Interstitial Fluid of Calves Injected with Enrofloxacin, Florfenicol, Ceftiofur, or Tulathromycin.

Derek M Foster, Luke G Martin, Mark G Papich

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Veterinary macrolides againstFrontiers in veterinary science · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Rational Use of Danofloxacin for Treatment ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Effects of deliveryPeerJ · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Derek M FosterDepartment of Population Health and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, NC State University, Raleigh, NC, United States of America.
Luke G MartinDepartment of Population Health and Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, NC State University, Raleigh, NC, United States of America.
Mark G PapichDepartment of Molecular and Biomedical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, NC State University, Raleigh, NC, United States of America.
North Central State College · USNorth Carolina State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bacterial pneumonia is the most common reason for parenteral antimicrobial administration to beef cattle in the United States. Yet there is little information describing the antimicrobial concentrations at the site of action. The objective of this study was to compare the active drug concentrations in the pulmonary epithelial lining fluid and interstitial fluid of four antimicrobials commonly used in cattle. After injection, plasma, interstitial fluid, and pulmonary epithelial lining fluid concentrations and protein binding were measured to determine the plasma pharmacokinetics of each drug. A cross-over design with six calves per drug was used. Following sample collection and drug analysis, pharmacokinetic calculations were performed. For enrofloxacin and metabolite ciprofloxacin, the interstitial fluid concentration was 52% and 78% of the plasma concentration, while pulmonary fluid concentrations was 24% and 40% of the plasma concentration, respectively. The pulmonary concentrations (enrofloxacin + ciprofloxacin combined) exceeded the MIC90 of 0.06 μg/mL at 48 hours after administration. For florfenicol, the interstitial fluid concentration was almost 98% of the plasma concentration, and the pulmonary concentrations were over 200% of the plasma concentrations, exceeding the breakpoint (≤ 2 μg/mL), and the MIC90 for Mannheimia haemolytica (1.0 μg/mL) for the duration of the study. For ceftiofur, penetration to the interstitial fluid was only 5% of the plasma concentration. Pulmonary epithelial lining fluid concentration represented 40% of the plasma concentration. Airway concentrations exceeded the MIC breakpoint for susceptible respiratory pathogens (≤ 2 μg/mL) for a short time at 48 hours after administration. The plasma and interstitial fluid concentrations of tulathromcyin were lower than the concentrations in pulmonary fluid throughout the study. The bronchial concentrations were higher than the plasma or interstitial concentrations, with over 900% penetration to the airways. Despite high diffusion into the bronchi, the tulathromycin concentrations achieved were lower than the MIC of susceptible bacteria at most time points.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsBiological AvailabilityCattleCephalosporinsCross-Over StudiesDisaccharidesEnrofloxacinEpithelial CellsExtracellular FluidFluoroquinolonesHeterocyclic CompoundsLungMacrolidesMaleMannheimia haemolyticaAnti-Bacterial AgentsceftiofurCephalosporinsDisaccharidesEnrofloxacinflorfenicolFluoroquinolonesHeterocyclic CompoundsMacrolidesThiamphenicoltulathromycinVeterinary Drugs

Identifiers

PMID26872361
PMCPMC4752255
OpenAlexW2270621841

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.