ArticlePloS one2022
Pharmacokinetics and bioequivalence of two imidocarb formulations in cattle after subcutaneous injection.
Article in PloS one, 2022. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects and mechanisms of Salvia miltiorrhiza Bunge extract on myocardial cell apoptosis in rat heart failure model.Acta cirurgica brasileira · 2024Article
- Residue Depletion of Imidocarb in Bovine Tissues by UPLC-MS/MS.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Imidocarb (IMD) is commonly used for treatment of eperythrozoon, babesia, piroplasma and trypanosoma in animals, but there are few studies on its pharmacokinetics in cattle. The purpose of this study was to obtain pharmacokinetic parameters and assess the bioequivalence of subcutaneous injections of two IMD formulations in cattle. Forty-eight healthy cattle, 24 males and 24 females, were randomLy divided into two groups (test group and reference group) with 12 males and 12 females per group. The generic IMD was injected subcutaneously with a single dose of 3.0 mg/kg in the test group. Reference group animals were given one injection of the marketed IMD at the same dosage. The limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantification (LOQ) for IMD in cattle plasma were 0.05 ng/mL and 0.1 ng/mL, respectively. The recoveries ranged from 88.50% to 92.42%, and the equation of this calibration curve was Y = 13672.1X+187.43. The pharmacokinetics parameters of the test group showed that the maximum concentration of 2257.5±273.62 ng/mL was obtained at 2.14±0.67 h, AUC0-t 14553.95±1946.85 ng·h/mL, AUC∞ 15077.88±1952.19 ng·h/mL, T1/2 31.77±25.75 h, CL/F 0.14±0.02 mL/h/g, and Vz/F 6.53±5.34 mL/g. There was no significant difference in AUC0-t, AUC∞ and Cmax between the test group and the reference group (P>0.05). The 90% confidence interval of AUC0-t, AUC0-∞ and Cmax in the test group was included in 80%-125% AUC0-t, AUC0-∞ and 70%-143% Cmax in the reference group, respectively. Based on these results, the two preparations were found to be bioequivalent.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.