METHODS: Plasma concentrations of artesunic acid and dihydroartemisinin were determined simultaneously by HPLC with electrochemical detection. The test drug was well tolerated and no undesirable adverse effects were observed.
RESULTS: Comparison of pharmacokinetic parameters of artesunic acid after oral and rectal administration showed statistically significant differences in t(max) and AUC, with no changes for Cmax and t1/2. As for dihydroartemisinin, differences were observed for t(max) and Cmax but not for AUC.
CONCLUSION: There appear to be pharmacokinetic differences between oral and rectal modes of administration. The significance of these findings should be explored in malaria patients before appropriate therapeutic regimens are devised.
METHODS: A group of mice (n = 5) treated orally with a single dose (5000 mg/kg) of MEDL was first subjected to the acute toxicity study using the OECD 420 model. In the hepatoprotective study, six groups of rats (n = 6) were used and each received as follows: Group 1 (normal control; pretreated with 10% DMSO (extract's vehicle) followed by treatment with 10% DMSO (hepatotoxin's vehicle) (10% DMSO +10% DMSO)), Group 2 (hepatotoxic control; 10% DMSO +3 g/kg APAP (hepatotoxin)), Group 3 (positive control; 200 mg/kg silymarin +3 g/kg APAP), Group 4 (50 mg/kg MEDL +3 g/kg APAP), Group 5 (250 mg/kg MEDL +3 g/kg APAP) or Group 6 (500 mg/kg MEDL +3 g/kg APAP). The test solutions pre-treatment were made orally once daily for 7 consecutive days, and 1 h after the last test solutions administration (on Day 7th), the rats were treated with vehicle or APAP. Blood were collected from those treated rats for biochemical analyses, which were then euthanized to collect their liver for endogenous antioxidant enzymes determination and histopathological examination. The extract was also subjected to in vitro anti-inflammatory investigation and, HPLC and GCMS analyses.
RESULTS: Pre-treatment of rats (Group 2) with 10% DMSO failed to attenuate the toxic effect of APAP on the liver as seen under the microscopic examination. This observation was supported by the significant (p
OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to measure the agreement between BAT and immunoassay in diagnosis of penicillin allergy.
METHOD: BAT was performed using penicillin G (Pen G), penicillin V (Pen V), penicilloyl-polylysine (PPL), minor determinant mix (MDM), amoxicillin (Amx) and ampicillin (Amp) in 25 patients. Immunoassay of total IgE (tIgE) and specific IgE (sIgE) antibodies to Pen G, Pen V, Amx and Amp were quantified. Skin prick test (SPT) using PPL-MDM, Amx, Amp and Clavulanic acid were also performed.
RESULTS: Minimal agreement was observed between BAT and immunoassay (k=0.25). Of two BAT-positive patients, one patient is positive to Amx (59.27%, SI=59) and Amp (82.32%, SI=82) but sIgE-negative to all drug tested. This patient is also SPT-positive to both drugs. Another patient is BAT-positive to Pen G (10.18%, SI=40), Pen V (25.07%, SI=100) and Amp (19.52%, SI=79). In sIgE immunoassay, four patients were sIgE-positive to at least one of the drugs tested. The sIgE level of three patients was between low and moderate and they were BAT-negative. One BAT-positive patient had a high level of sIgE antibodies (3.50-17.5kU/L) along with relatively high specific to total IgE ratio ≥0.002 (0.004-0.007).
CONCLUSIONS: The agreement between BAT and immunoassay is minimal. Performing both tests provides little increase in the sensitivity of allergy diagnosis work-up for immediate reactions to penicillin.