JPET

Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mannisto, P. T.
Right arrow Articles by Rauramaa, V.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mannisto, P. T.
Right arrow Articles by Rauramaa, V.

Efficacy of erythromycin acistrate (2'-acetyl erythromycin stearate) and erythromycin stearate in experimental infections in mice [published erratum appears in J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1989 Dec;251(3):1246-7]

PT Mannisto, H Hanhijarvi, A Havas, A Vuorela, H Komulainen and V Rauramaa

Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Helsinki, Finland.

The efficacy of erythromycin stearate (ES) and its 2'-acetyl ester (erythromycin acistrate, EA) was compared in eight experimental infections in mice of both sexes. In two studies the mice were made leukopenic by whole-body irradiation. Four absorption studies were also performed in parallel. In Streptococcus pneumoniae peritonitis, the protective dose 50% (PD50) value of EA and ES, given s.c., did not differ from each other. The bioavailability of EA was slightly inferior to that of ES. In three other peritonitis studies (2 Staphylococci and 1 Streptococcus), where the treatments were given s.c., EA seemed to lag behind ES in efficacy. The parallel absorption experiment showed, however, that, as compared to ES, only about one-half of EA was released from the s.c. injection site to the blood. The adjusted PD50 values of both erythromycins were about the same, with one exception. When the treatments were given i.p. both erythromycins were equally effective, and the difference in bioavailability was minor. On the contrary, the efficacy of 2'-ethylsuccinyl erythromycin was only about one-tenth that of the other erythromycins as was also the bioavailability. Oral treatment gave similar therapeutic results with EA and ES, with similar bioavailabilities, too. In the muscle abscess model, single s.c. injections of EA and ES were equally effective in reducing the growth of Staphylococcus aureus. These results suggest that there is no great difference in the in vivo antibacterial performance of ES and its 2'-acetyl ester, although the absorption problems complicate the interpretation. Hence EA performs better than expected if only the hydrolyzed drug were useful.

Volume 250, Issue 3, pp. 1028-1033, 09/01/1989
Copyright © 1989 by American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics







Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
All ASPET Journals Molecular Pharmacology Pharmacological Reviews
 Molecular Interventions Drug Metabolism and Disposition

Copyright © 1989 by the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.