Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31170198›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Microdialysis combined with liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry for the quantitation of gemifloxacin and its application to a muscle penetration study in healthy and MRSA-infected rats.

Rui Zhao, Qing Wang, Xin-Xin Hu, Tong-Ying Nie, Xin-Yi Yang, Cong-Ran Li, Xi Lu, Xiukun Wang, Jian-Dong Jiang, Jing Pang and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 43% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rui ZhaoBeijing Key Laboratory of Antimicrobial Agents and Department of Pharmacology, Institute of Medicinal Biotechnology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Qing WangBeijing Key Laboratory of Antimicrobial Agents and Department of Pharmacology, Institute of Medicinal Biotechnology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Xin-Xin HuBeijing Key Laboratory of Antimicrobial Agents and Department of Pharmacology, Institute of Medicinal Biotechnology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Tong-Ying NieBeijing Key Laboratory of Antimicrobial Agents and Department of Pharmacology, Institute of Medicinal Biotechnology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Xin-Yi YangBeijing Key Laboratory of Antimicrobial Agents and Department of Pharmacology, Institute of Medicinal Biotechnology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Cong-Ran LiBeijing Key Laboratory of Antimicrobial Agents and Department of Pharmacology, Institute of Medicinal Biotechnology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Xi LuBeijing Key Laboratory of Antimicrobial Agents and Department of Pharmacology, Institute of Medicinal Biotechnology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Xiukun WangBeijing Key Laboratory of Antimicrobial Agents and Department of Pharmacology, Institute of Medicinal Biotechnology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Jian-Dong JiangBeijing Key Laboratory of Antimicrobial Agents and Department of Pharmacology, Institute of Medicinal Biotechnology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Jing PangBeijing Key Laboratory of Antimicrobial Agents and Department of Pharmacology, Institute of Medicinal Biotechnology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0002-0538-0327
Xue-Fu YouBeijing Key Laboratory of Antimicrobial Agents and Department of Pharmacology, Institute of Medicinal Biotechnology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pharmacological efficacy is based on the drug concentration in target tissues, which usually cannot be represented by the plasma concentration. The purpose of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetic characteristics of gemifloxacin in plasma and skeletal muscle and evaluate its tissue penetration in both healthy and MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus)-infected rats. A microdialysis (MD) combined with liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method was developed and validated to determine free gemifloxacin concentrations in rat plasma and skeletal muscle simultaneously. The in vivo recoveries of MD were 23.21% ± 3.42% for skeletal muscle and 20.62% ± 3.19% for plasma, and were concentration independent. We provided evidence that the method developed here meets FDA requirements. Additionally, this method was successfully applied to the determination of free gemifloxacin in rats. Muscle and blood dialysates were collected after an 18 mg/kg intravenous bolus dose. The mean areas under the concentration-time curves (AUCs) from 0 to 9 h for skeletal muscle and plasma were 3641.50 ± 915.65 h*ng/mL and 7068.32 ± 1964.19 h*ng/mL in MRSA-infected rats and 3774.72 ± 700.36 h*ng/mL and 6927.49 ± 1714.86 h*ng/mL in healthy rats, respectively. There was no significant difference (P>0.05) in gemifloxacin exposure between healthy rats and MRSA-infected rats for plasma or muscle. The low ratio of AUC0-9 muscle to AUC0-9 plasma suggested lower drug exposure in skeletal muscle than in plasma for both healthy and MRSA-infected rats. Our study suggested that the administration of gemifloxacin according to drug levels in plasma to treat local infection is unreasonable and might result in an inadequate dose regimen.

Indexed as

MicrodialysisTandem Mass SpectrometryAnimalsBlood ProteinsChromatography, LiquidCiprofloxacinDisease Models, AnimalGemifloxacinMaleMethicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureusMusclesProtein BindingRats, Sprague-DawleyReproducibility of ResultsThighTissue DistributionBlood ProteinsCiprofloxacinGemifloxacin

Identifiers

PMID31170198
PMCPMC6553852
OpenAlexW2950475044

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.