4.7 Article

Comparison of Oral, Intranasal and Aerosol Administration of Amiodarone in Rats as a Model of Pulmonary Phospholipidosis

期刊

PHARMACEUTICS
卷 11, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics11070345

关键词

phospholipidosis; amiodarone; foamy alveolar macrophages; di-22:6 bis-monoacylglycerol; mass spectrometry imaging; high content analysis

资金

  1. National Centre for Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research [NC/CO13203/1, NC/L001683/1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Foamy' alveolar macrophages (FAM) observed in nonclinical toxicology studies during inhaled drug development may indicate drug-induced phospholipidosis, but can also derive from adaptive non-adverse mechanisms. Orally administered amiodarone is currently used as a model of pulmonary phospholipidosis and it was hypothesized that aerosol administration would produce phospholipidosis-induced FAM that could be characterized and used in comparative inhalation toxicology. Han-Wistar rats were given amiodarone via (1) intranasal administration (6.25 mg/kg) on two days, (2) aerosol administration (3 mg/kg) on two days, (3) aerosol administration (10 mg/kg) followed by three days of 30 mg/kg or (4) oral administration (100 mg/kg) for 7 days. Alveolar macrophages in bronchoalveolar lavage were evaluated by differential cell counting and high content fluorescence imaging. Histopathology and mass-spectrometry imaging (MSI) were performed on lung slices. The higher dose aerosolised amiodarone caused transient pulmonary inflammation (p < 0.05), but only oral amiodarone resulted in FAM (p < 0.001). MSI of the lungs of orally treated rats revealed a homogenous distribution of amiodarone and a putative phospholipidosis marker, di-22:6 bis-monoacylglycerol, throughout lung tissue whereas aerosol administration resulted in localization of both compounds around the airway lumen. Thus, unlike oral administration, aerosolised amiodarone failed to produce the expected FAM responses.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据