Barbhaiya R H, Shukla U A, Gleason C R, Shyu W C, Wilber R B, Martin R R, Pittman K A
Department of Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Syracuse, New York 13221-4755.
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1990 Jun;34(6):1198-203. doi: 10.1128/AAC.34.6.1198.
The objectives of this study were to assess the safety and tolerance of cefprozil, to characterize the pharmacokinetics of cefprozil after administration of multiple doses of the drug, and to compare these pharmacokinetic parameters with those obtained with cefaclor. The volunteers received 28 doses of 250, 500, or 1,000 mg of cefprozil or 500 mg of cefaclor every 8 h for 10 days. Serial blood samples and the total volume of urine voided by each individual were collected for pharmacokinetic evaluation on days 1, 5, and 10. Both cephalosporins were well tolerated after multiple oral dosing. The peak levels in plasma (Cmax) of cefprozil ranged from 5.7 to 18.3 micrograms/ml after oral administration of 250- to 1,000-mg doses. The regression analysis of Cmax on cefprozil dose showed a dose-linear response. The mean Cmax of cefaclor ranged from 15.2 to 16.7 micrograms/ml and did not change significantly on multiple dosing. The overall mean terminal half-life of cefprozil was 1.2 h and was invariant with respect to dose or duration of dosing. The area under the plasma-concentration-versus-time curve from 0 h to infinity (AUC0-infinity) of cefprozil increased in a dose-proportional manner with an increase in dose. The overall urinary recovery (61% of dose) and renal clearance values of cefprozil were generally invariant with respect to dose and duration of dosing. While cefprozil was apparently absorbed less rapidly and achieved lower Cmax values than cefaclor, the AUC0-infinity of cefprozil was nearly twofold greater than that of cefaclor. The half-life of cefprozil was also twofold longer than that observed for cefaclor. Although the urinary recovery of cefaclor (75% of dose) was significantly higher than that of cefprozil (61% of dose), the concentrations of cefprozil in urine remained significantly higher than those of cefaclor from 2 to 8 h postdosing. If the therapeutic concept is maintained that levels of beta-lactam antibiotics in plasma should exceed the MIC for the offending organisms over a period that approximates the dosing interval, then cefprozil would appear to be suitable for twice-daily administration, whereas cefaclor should probably be administered three or even four times a day.
本研究的目的是评估头孢丙烯的安全性和耐受性,确定多次给药后头孢丙烯的药代动力学特征,并将这些药代动力学参数与头孢克洛的参数进行比较。志愿者每8小时接受28剂250、500或1000毫克的头孢丙烯或500毫克的头孢克洛,共给药10天。在第1、5和10天采集系列血样以及每个个体的总尿量,用于药代动力学评估。两种头孢菌素多次口服给药后耐受性良好。口服250至1000毫克剂量的头孢丙烯后,血浆中的峰值水平(Cmax)范围为5.7至18.3微克/毫升。头孢丙烯剂量对Cmax的回归分析显示呈剂量线性反应。头孢克洛的平均Cmax范围为15.2至16.7微克/毫升,多次给药后无显著变化。头孢丙烯的总体平均终末半衰期为1.2小时,与剂量或给药持续时间无关。头孢丙烯从0小时到无穷大的血浆浓度-时间曲线下面积(AUC0-∞)随剂量增加呈剂量比例增加。头孢丙烯的总体尿回收率(剂量的61%)和肾清除率值通常与剂量和给药持续时间无关。虽然头孢丙烯的吸收明显比头孢克洛慢,且Cmax值较低,但头孢丙烯的AUC0-∞几乎是头孢克洛的两倍。头孢丙烯的半衰期也比头孢克洛观察到的半衰期长两倍。虽然头孢克洛的尿回收率(剂量的75%)明显高于头孢丙烯(剂量的61%),但给药后2至8小时头孢丙烯在尿液中的浓度仍明显高于头孢克洛。如果维持β-内酰胺类抗生素在血浆中的水平应在接近给药间隔的时间段内超过致病微生物的最低抑菌浓度(MIC)这一治疗理念,那么头孢丙烯似乎适合每日给药两次,而头孢克洛可能应每日给药三次甚至四次。