Comparative pharmacokinetics of chlortetracycline, tetracycline, minocycline, and tigecycline in broiler chickens

• Main Authors: Hubert Ziółkowski, Agnieszka Jasiecka-Mikołajczyk, Hanna Madej-Śmiechowska, Joanna Janiuk, Aleksandra Zygmuntowicz, Michał Dąbrowski
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier 2020-10-01
• Series: Poultry Science
• Subjects: tigecycline; minocycline; tetracycline; chlortetracycline; pharmacokinetics
• Online Access: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0032579120304016

Tetracyclines continue to be important antimicrobials in veterinary medicine. However, the pharmacokinetics (PK) of tigecycline (TIG) and minocycline (MIN) in broiler chickens has not been investigated to date, and the PK of chlortetracycline (CTC) and tetracycline (TET) remains insufficiently researched, especially in terms of absorption. These antimicrobials have never been compared in a single setting in a single species; therefore, the aim of the present study was to compare the PK of TIG, MIN, CTC, and TET in broiler chickens. Each drug (10 mg/kg) was administered intravenously (IV) and orally (PO). The plasma concentrations of each drug were determined by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry, and the results were analyzed using compartmental and non-compartmental PK models. Despite the fact that all of the studied antimicrobials were administered at an identical IV dose, the area under the concentration–time curve between zero and the last sampling point (AUC0→t) for MIN (35,014 ± 3,274 μg × hour/mL) and CTC (41,851 ± 10,965 μg × hour/mL) differed significantly from that determined for TIG (18,866 ± 4,326 μg × hour/mL) and TET (17,817 ± 4,469 μg × hour/mL). After IV administration, the values of AUC0→t were also directly related to total body clearance values which were significantly higher for TIG (0.56 ± 0.14 L/hour × kg) and TET (0.60 ± 0.14 L/hour × kg) than for CTC (0.25 ± 0.05 L/hour × kg) and MIN (0.29 ± 0.03 L/hour × kg). In turn, after PO administration, TIG was absorbed in only 1.55% ± 0.82, and CTC in 30.54% ± 6.99, whereas the bioavailability of MIN and TET was relatively high at 52.33% ± 3.92 and 56.45% ± 9.71, respectively. The differences in PK parameters between these drugs, despite their structural similarities, suggest that active transport mechanisms may play a role in their absorption and distribution.