Pharmacokinetics and tissue distribution of amphotericin B following oral administration of three lipid-based formulations to rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to assess the pharmacokinetics and tissue distribution of amphotericin B (AmB) in rats following oral administration of three lipid-based formulations (iCo-009, iCo-010 and iCo-011). The lipid-based formulations were administered to rats at a dose of 10 mg/kg and blood samples were withdrawn at predose, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 24, 48 and 72 h, after which the animals were sacrificed and the body organs were collected for AmB quantification using a validated HPLC method. Plasma pharmacokinetics parameters were determined using non-compartmental analysis. The disappearance of AmB from plasma was the slowest following the administration of iCo-010 with MRT of 63 h followed by iCo-009 then iCo-011 (36 and 27 h). The AUC(0-24h) of iCo-009 and iCo-010 was 1.5-2-fold higher than that of iCo-011. The kidney exposure was comparable between iCo-009 and iCo-010 and was higher than that of iCo-011. The lung exposure was the highest following iCo-010 administration as compared to that of iCo-009. The distribution of AmB from plasma to tissues resulted in a high accumulation of AmB overtime with slow back-distribution to plasma. The pharmacokinetics profiles varied among the three formulations, despite the similarity in lipid composition between iCo-010 and iCo-011 and the presence of Peceol® as a common component in the formulations. The administration of oral iCo-010 could lead to higher steady state concentrations in the tissues after multiple dosing, which could lead to enhanced eradication of tissue borne fungal and parasitic infections.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".