AUTHOR=Xu Yuxiang , Qie Hongxin , Zhao Haopeng , Gong Wenlin , Wang Peiyuan , Gao Xiaonan , Gao Jinglin , Feng Zhangying , Wang Mingxia TITLE=Evaluation of pharmacokinetics and relative bioavailability of pentoxifylline and its metabolite in beagle dogs following different formulations JOURNAL=Frontiers in Pharmacology VOLUME=15 YEAR=2024 URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2024.1488076 DOI=10.3389/fphar.2024.1488076 ISSN=1663-9812 ABSTRACT=
A single-oral-dose, two-period cross-over study with a 5-day washout period under fed condition was conducted in six beagle dogs to explore the pharmacokinetic characteristics and relative bioavailability between sustained-release (SR) tablets and enteric-coated (EC) tablets of pentoxifylline (PTX) and its metabolite. The results showed that M5 exhibited the highest exposure level, while M1 demonstrated the lowest in both the SR and EC tablet groups. For PTX and M1, T1/2 were 0.42 and 0.55 h, with tmax of 1.83 and 1.83 h, respectively, in the SR tablet group; in the EC tablet group, T1/2 were 0.38 and 0.47 h, respectively. However, a significantly prolonged absorption process was noted, with tmax values of 5.06 and 5.78 h. In contrast, M5 exhibited distinct pharmacokinetic differences compared to PTX and M1. For the SR tablet group, T1/2 and tmax were recorded at 2.03 and 3.08 h, respectively. In the EC tablet group, T1/2 and tmax were 1.67 and 5.78 h, respectively. With regard to the geometric least squares mean (LSM) of AUC and Cmax for SR tablets and EC tablets, the ratios of SR/EC of PTX, M1 and M5 were 67.62% (90% CI, 50.49%–90.55%), 78.18% (90% CI, 54.15%–112.88%), and 119.11% (90% CI, 99.62%–142.41%), respectively, for AUC(0-t). The ratios were 67.62% (90% CI, 50.50%–90.55%), 78.36% (90% CI, 54.48%–112.72%), and 119.39% (90% CI, 100.03%–142.50%) for AUC(0−∞) and 54.36% (90% CI, 36.63%–80.67%), 58.80% (90% CI, 40.84%–84.66%), and 100.51% (90% CI, 89.50%–112.88%) for Cmax, respectively. The AUC ratio predictions of bioconversion results indicated that there was no significant difference in the bioconversion of M1 between the SR tablets and EC tablets, with conversion rates of 0.37 and 0.36, respectively. In contrast, the conversion rate of M5 demonstrated a significant difference (