Validating an empiric sulfadiazine–trimethoprim dosage regimen for treatment of Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus delphini infections in mink (Neovison vison)

Antimicrobial agents are used extensively off‐label in mink, as almost no agents are registered for this animal species. Pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) data are required to determine antimicrobial dosages specifically targeting mink bacterial pathogens. The aims of this study were to assess, in a PKPD framework, the empirical dosage regimen for a combination of trimethoprim (TMP) and sulfadiazine (SDZ) in mink, and secondarily to produce data for future setting of clinical breakpoints. TMP and SDZ PK parameters were obtained experimentally in 22 minks following IV or oral administration of TMP/SDZ (30 mg/kg, i.e. 5 mg/kg TMP and 25 mg/kg SDZ). fAUC/MIC with a target value of 24 hr was selected as the PKPD index predictive of TMP/SDZ efficacy. Using a modeling approach, PKPD cutoffs for TMP and SDZ were determined as 0.062 and 16 mg/L, respectively. By incorporating an anticipated potentiation effect of SDZ on TMP against Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus delphini, the PKPD cutoff of TMP was revised to 0.312 mg/L, which is above the tentative epidemiological cutoffs (TECOFF) for these species. The current empirical TMP/SDZ dosage regimen (30 mg/kg, PO, once daily) therefore appears adequate for treatment of wild‐type E. coli and S. delphini infections in mink.     

Pharmacokinetics and effects on clinical and physiological parameters following a single bolus dose of propofol in common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus)

The objectives of this study were (a) to establish a population pharmacokinetic model and (b) to investigate the clinical and physiological effects of a single bolus dose of propofol in common marmosets. In Study 1, pharmacokinetic analysis was performed in six marmosets under sevoflurane anaesthesia. 8 mg/kg of propofol was administrated at a rate of 4 mg kg^?1 min^?1. Blood samples were collected 2, 5, 15, 30, 60, 90, 120 or 180 min after starting propofol administration. Plasma concentration was measured, and population pharmacokinetic modelling was performed. A two‐compartment model was selected as the final model. The population pharmacokinetic parameters were as follows: V₁ = 1.14 L, V₂ = 77.6 L, CL₁ = 0.00182 L/min, CL₂ = 0.0461 L/min. In Study 2, clinical and physiological parameters were assessed and recorded every 2 min after 12 mg/kg of propofol was administrated at a rate of 4 mg kg^?1 min^?1. Immobilization was sustained for 5 min following propofol administration without apparent bradycardia. While combination of propofol and sevoflurane caused apnoea in Study 1, apnoea was not observed following single administration of propofol in Study 2. These data provide bases for further investigation on intravenous anaesthesia using propofol in common marmosets.