Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of oleylphosphocholine in a hamster model of visceral leishmaniasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the pharmacokinetic properties of oleylphosphocholine (OlPC) in hamsters following a single oral dose. Its prophylactic activity was tested to establish exposure-activity relationships, while a 5 + 5 day oral regimen at 20 mg/kg with long post-treatment follow-up was performed to assess its curative potential. METHODS: Single oral doses of 20, 50 and 100 mg/kg were administered for pharmacokinetic analysis while a 100 mg/kg single oral dose was given on day 7, 4 or 1, or 4 h prior to infection in the prophylactic efficacy study. The animals were infected on day 0 with Leishmania infantum and the resulting parasite burdens were measured in target organs on day 21. In the curative model, treatment started on day 21 post-infection at 20 mg/kg for 5 + 5 days and amastigote burdens were determined in target organs either on day 42 [10 days after the end of treatment (dpt)] or day 72 (40 dpt). RESULTS: OlPC showed elimination t1/2 of ∼50 h and dose-proportional exposure. The prophylactic action of OlPC was in agreement with model-simulated drug exposures, showing dose-dependent residual activity. Interestingly, the 100 mg/kg single dose administered 4 days before infection (day -4) still reduced the overall parasite burden by ∼50%. In the curative model, >99% clearance of infection was observed at 10 dpt in all OlPC-treated animals and remained so at 40 dpt. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals that total plasma exposure (AUCt-∞) correlates well with the prophylactic and curative efficacy of OlPC in the L. infantum hamster model.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".