Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34449832›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Pharmacokinetics of tulathromycin in pregnant ewes (Ovis aries) challenged with Campylobacter jejuni.

Michael Yaeger, Jonathan P Mochel, Zuowei Wu, Paul Plummer, Orhan Sahin, Joseph Smith, Melda Ocal, Ashenafi Beyi, Changyun Xu, Qijing Zhang and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The Pharmacokinetics of Tulathromycin Following Subcutaneous Administration in Rhesus Macaques (Macaca mulatta).Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
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.

Michael YaegerDepartment of Veterinary Pathology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, United States of America.
Jonathan P MochelDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic & Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-0997-3111
Zuowei WuDepartment of Veterinary Microbiology and Preventative Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States of America.
Paul PlummerDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic & Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, United States of America.
Orhan SahinDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic & Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, United States of America.
Joseph SmithDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States of America.
Melda OcalDepartment of Veterinary Microbiology and Preventative Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States of America.
Ashenafi BeyiDepartment of Veterinary Microbiology and Preventative Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States of America.
Changyun XuDepartment of Veterinary Microbiology and Preventative Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States of America.
Qijing ZhangDepartment of Veterinary Microbiology and Preventative Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States of America.
Ronald W GriffithDepartment of Veterinary Microbiology and Preventative Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States of America.
Iowa State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of tulathromycin in the plasma and maternal and fetal tissues of pregnant ewes when administered within 24 hours of a single, IV Campylobacter jejuni (C. jejuni) challenge. Twelve, pregnant ewes between 72-92 days of gestation were challenged IV with C. jejuni IA3902 and then treated with 1.1 ml/45.36 kg of tulathromycin subcutaneously 18 hours post-challenge. Ewes were bled at predetermined time points and euthanized either at a predetermined time point or following the observation of vaginal bleeding or abortion. Following euthanasia, tissues were collected for bacterial culture, pharmacokinetics and histologic examination. The maximum (geometric) mean tulathromycin plasma concentration was estimated at 0.302 μg/mL, with a peak level observed at around 1.2 hours. The apparent systemic clearance of tulathromycin was estimated at 16.6 L/h (or 0.28 L/kg/h) with an elimination half-life estimated at approximately 22 hours. The mean tissue concentrations were highest in the uterus (2.464 μg/g) and placentome (0.484 μg/g), and were lowest in fetal liver (0.11 μg/g) and fetal lung (0.03 μg/g). Compared to previous reports, results of this study demonstrate that prior IV administration of C. jejuni appeared to substantially alter the pharmacokinetics of tulathromycin, reducing both the peak plasma concentrations and elimination half-life. However, additional controlled trials are required to confirm those observations.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsCampylobacter InfectionsCampylobacter jejuniDisaccharidesFemaleHeterocyclic CompoundsMacrolidesPregnancySheepSheep, DomesticAnti-Bacterial AgentsDisaccharidesHeterocyclic CompoundsMacrolidestulathromycin

Identifiers

PMID34449832
PMCPMC8396736
OpenAlexW3193305520

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.