This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the bioequivalence of 5% ceftiofur hydrochloride sterile suspension in two formulations, a test formulation (Saifukang 5% CEF, Hvsen) and a reference formulation (Excenel®RTU 5% CEF, Pfizer). Twenty-four healthy pigs were assigned to a two-period, two-treatment crossover parallel trial, and both formulations were administered at a single intramuscular dose of 5 mg/kg weight, with a 7-day washout period. Blood samples were collected consecutively for up to 144 hr after administration. The concentrations of ceftiofur- and desfuroylceftiofur-related metabolites in the plasma were determined by high-performance liquid chromatography. In addition, the major pharmacokinetic parameters (Cmax, AUC0-t and AUC0-∞) were computed and compared via analysis of variance, with 90% confidence intervals. Bioequivalence evaluation of Tmax was statistically analyzed with the nonparametric test. The comparison values between test and reference formulation for AUC0-t, AUC0-∞, Cmax, and Tmax were 376.7 ± 75.3 µg·hr/ml, 390.5 ± 78.6 µg·hr/ml, 385.9 ± 79.2 µg·hr/ml, 402.7 ± 80.4 µg·hr/ml, 34.6 ± 5.5 µg/ml, 36.1 ± 6.2 µg/ml, 1.27 ± 0.18 hr, and 1.26 ± 0.21 hr, respectively, and we observed no significant differences between the two formulations. The 90% CI values were within the recommended range of 80–125% (P>0.05), and the relative bioavailability of the test product was 96.47 ± 10.92% according to AUC0-t values. Based on our results, the two formulations exhibit comparable pharmacokinetic profiles, and the test product is bioequivalent to the reference formulation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xiong et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: