Advertisement

Comparison of the Pharmacokinetic Profiles of Ceftriaxone Used Alone and Combined with Danhong Injection in Old Rats

  • Qian Zhang
  • Jianming Guo
  • Guoliang Dai
  • Jianping Li
  • Lijing Zhu
  • Shufen He
  • Yang Zong
  • Zhishu Tang
  • Buchang Zhao
  • Wenzheng Ju
  • Jinao Duan
Original Research Article
  • 13 Downloads

Abstract

Background and Objectives

Danhong injection is the most commonly prescribed adjuvant drug applied for the treatment of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases in China. Ceftriaxone is usually prescribed along with Danhong injection to elderly patients with complications. However, the pharmacokinetic interactions between these two medications have not been investigated. The aim of this study was to investigate whether Danhong injection influences the pharmacokinetic profile of ceftriaxone in old rats when these two medications are used in combination.

Methods

The animal experiment protocol was designed according to the clinical data. Ten-month-old male Sprague–Dawley (SD) rats were dosed with ceftriaxone through intravenous administration for 1 or 7 days in the presence or absence of Danhong injection. The combinations were divided into 1-day, 7-day, and 14-day combined-treatment groups in which Danhong injection was administered for 1, 7, or 14 days and ceftriaxone was given for 1, 7, or 7 days, respectively. The plasma concentration of ceftriaxone was determined by ultrahigh performance liquid chromatography coupled with triple-quadrupole mass spectrometry (UHPLC–TQ–MS) on a BEH C18 column with a mobile phase consisting of acetonitrile and 0.4% formic acid–water. The chromatographic method was validated and found to be simple, rapid, and stable.

Results

Danhong injection significantly increased the plasma clearance of and decreased systemic exposure to ceftriaxone. In the 1-day combined-treatment group, the plasma clearance of ceftriaxone increased by 52.69%, and the area under the concentration–time curve (AUC) of ceftriaxone was decreased by 32.54% (P < 0.01). In the 7-day combined-treatment group, the rate of plasma clearance increased by 52.49% and the area under the concentration–time curve decreased by 31.15% (P < 0.01). For the 14-day combined-treatment group, the plasma clearance of ceftriaxone increased by 26.73%, and the area under the concentration–time curve decreased by 21.44% (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

In old male rats, systemic exposure to ceftriaxone decreased when used concomitantly with Danhong injection, which may be because Danhong injection increased the plasma clearance of ceftriaxone. Further investigations should be carried out to clarify the mechanism for the influence of Danhong injection on the pharmacokinetics of ceftriaxone.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr. Xiaoxiao Wang for assistance with the data mining of the statistics on the concomitant use of medications with Danhong injection. We gratefully acknowledge Prof. J. A. Duan and Prof. W. Z. Ju for their supervision. We also thank Prof. Z. S. Tang and Prof. B. C. Zhao for their technical and financial support.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

This work was financially supported by the National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program; 2011CB505300, 2011CB505303), the National Technology Major Project of China (2015ZX09501004001006), the Key Research Project in Jiangsu Collaborative Innovation Center of Chinese Medicinal Resources Industrialization (ZDXM-2-2), the Science and Technology project of the Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine of Jiangsu Province (YB2017018), and the Research Project and Innovation Program of graduate students at Jiangsu College and University (201510315064Y).

Conflict of interest

Q. Zhang, G. L. Dai, and W. Z. Ju were employees of the Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, J. M. Guo, J. P. Li, and J. A. Duan were employees of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, and L. J. Zhu, S. F. He, and Y. Zong were employees of the Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine during the research reported in this paper. All of the authors declare that they have no potential conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution or practice at which the studies were conducted. All procedures performed in studies involving animals were approved by animal care and use committees where the studies were conducted. This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Garin N, Koyanagi A, Chatterji S, Tyrovolas S, Olaya B, Leonardi M, et al. Global multimorbidity patterns: a cross-sectional, population-based, multi-country study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2016;71(2):205–14.  https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glv128.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rupert AP. The epidemiology of polypharmacy. Clin Med (Lond). 2016;16(5):465–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maher RL, Hanlon J, Hajjar ER. Clinical consequences of polypharmacy in elderly. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2014;13(1):57–65.  https://doi.org/10.1517/14740338.2013.827660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guthrie B, Makubate B, Hernandez-Santiago V, Dreischulte T. The rising tide of polypharmacy and drug-drug interactions: population database analysis 1995–2010. BMC Med. 2015;13:74.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0322-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Charlesworth CJ, Smit E, Lee DS, Alramadhan F, Odden MC. Polypharmacy among adults aged 65 years and older in the United States: 1988–2010. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2015;70(8):989–95.  https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glv013.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tachjian A, Maria V, Jahangir A. Use of herbal products and potential interactions in patients with cardiovascular diseases. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55(6):515–25.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2009.07.074.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gurwitz JH, Field TS, Harrold LR, Rothschild J, Debellis K, Seger AC, et al. Incidence and preventability of adverse drug events among older persons in the ambulatory setting. JAMA. 2003;289(9):1107–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhang Q, Ju WZ, Guo JM, Li JP, Tan XY, Wang XX, et al. Rationality analysis of the clinical application of Danhong injection in Jiangsu Province hospital of TCM from 2013 to 2014. Zhongguo Zhong Yao Za Zhi. 2016;41(4):748–54.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Li GH, Jiang HY, Xie YM, Jiang JJ, Yang W, Zhao W, et al. Analysis of traditional Chinese medicine syndrome, traditional Chinese medicine and Western medicine in 84 697 patients with coronary heart disease based on big data. Zhongguo Zhong Yao Za Zhi. 2014;39(18):3462–8.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oz F, Gul S, Kaya MG, Yazici M, Bulut I, Elitok A, et al. Does aspirin use prevent acute coronary syndrome in patients with pneumonia: multicenter prospective randomized trial. Coron Artery Dis. 2013;24(3):231–7.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MCA.0b013e32835d7610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dellamonica P, Garraffo R, Etesse-Carsenti H, Bernard E, Mondain V. Pharmacokinetic and bacteriological study of cefadroxil-salicylate and josamycin-salicylate drug regimens. Int J Clin Pharmacol Res. 1993;13(1):11–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Whittem T, Freeman DA, Hanlon D, Parton K. The effects on the pharmacokinetics of intravenous ceftiofur sodium in dairy cattle of simultaneous intravenous acetyl salicylate (aspirin) or probenecid. J Vet Pharmacol Ther. 1995;18(1):61–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liu X, Wu Z, Yang K, Ding H, Wu Y. Quantitative analysis combined with chromatographic fingerprint for comprehensive evaluation of Danhong injection using HPLC-DAD. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2013;76:70–4.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpba.2012.12.013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Xie YY, Xiao X, Luo JM, Fu C, Wang QW, Wang YM, et al. Integrating qualitative and quantitative characterization of traditional Chinese medicine injection by high-performance liquid chromatography with diode array detection and tandem mass spectrometry. J Sep Sci. 2014;37(12):1438–47.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jssc.201400129.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wang Y, Shao Q, Qu HB, Liu YF. Multiple fingerprints and multi-comonent quantitative analysis of Danhong injection. Zhong Cao Yao. 2014;45(4):490–7.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhang Q, Dai GL, Guo JM, Tan XY, Zhang DS, He SF, et al. Comparison of the quantity of the common components in Danhong injection, Danshen injection and Honghua injection. Chin Hosp Pharm J. 2017;37(15):1435–9.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhou X, Chan K, Yeung JH. Herb–drug interactions with Danshen (Salvia miltiorrhiza): a review on the role of cytochrome P450 enzymes. Drug Metabol Drug Interact. 2012;27(1):9–18.  https://doi.org/10.1515/dmdi-2011-0038.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wang L, Sweet DH. Active hydrophilic components of the medicinal herb Salvia miltiorrhiza (Danshen) potently inhibit organic anion transporters 1 (Slc22a6) and 3 (Slc22a8). Evid Based Complement Altern Med. 2012;2012:872458.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/872458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wang L, Sweet DH. Competitive inhibition of human organic anion transporters 1 (SLC22A6), 3 (SLC22A8) and 4 (SLC22A11) by major components of the medicinal herb Salvia miltiorrhiza (Danshen). Drug Metab Pharmacokinet. 2013;28(3):220–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wang L, Venitz J, Sweet DH. Cumulative organic anion transporter-mediated drug–drug interaction potential of multiple components in Salvia miltiorrhiza (Danshen) preparations. Pharm Res. 2014;31(12):3503–14.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-014-1437-9.
  21. 21.
    Patel IH, Chen S, Parsonnet M, Hackman MR, Brooks MA, Konikoff J, et al. Pharmacokinetics of ceftriaxone in humans. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1981;20(5):634–41.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Maudgal DP, Maxwell JD, Lees LJ, Wild RN. Biliary excretion of amoxycillin and ceftriaxone after intravenous administration in man. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1982;14(2):213–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kato Y, Takahara S, Kato S, Kubo Y, Sai Y, Tamai I, et al. Involvement of multidrug resistance-associated protein 2 (Abcc2) in molecular weight-dependent biliary excretion of beta-lactam antibiotics. Drug Metab Dispos. 2008;36(6):1088–96.  https://doi.org/10.1124/dmd.107.019125.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Takeda M, Babu E, Narikawa S, Endou H. Interaction of human organic anion transporters with various cephalosporin antibiotics. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2002;438:137–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yamaguchi H, Takeuchi T, Okada M, Kobayashi M, Unno M, Abe T, et al. Screening of antibiotics that interact with organic anion-transporting polypeptides 1B1 and 1B3 using fluorescent probes. Biol Pharm Bull. 2011;34(3):389–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nakaharai K, Sakamoto Y, Yaita K, Yoshimura Y, Igarashi S, Tachikawa N. Drug-induced liver injury associated with high-dose ceftriaxone: a retrospective cohort study adjusted for the propensity score. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2016;72(8):1003–11.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-016-2064-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lorberbaum T, Sampson KJ, Chang JB, Iyer V, Woosley RL, Kass RS, et al. Coupling data mining and laboratory experiments to discover drug interactions causing QT prolongation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68(16):1756–64.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2016.07.761.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhang Q, Ju WZ, Guo JM, Li JP, Wang XX, Dai GL, et al. A literature review on the drug–drug interactions between Danhong injection and its common combination based on clinical statistics. Chin Hosp Pharm J. 2016;36(9):43–7.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Page-Sharp M, Nunn T, Salman S, Moore BR, Batty KT, Davis TME, et al. Validation and application of a dried blood spot ceftriaxone assay. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2016;60(1):14–23.  https://doi.org/10.1128/aac.01740-15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Matsui H, Komiya M, Ikeda C, Tachibana A. Comparative pharmacokinetics of YM-13115, ceftriaxone, and ceftazidime in rats, dogs, and Rhesus monkeys. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1984;26(2):204–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yu J, Yang LH, Hu CQ, Yan ZY. Degradation test of ceftriaxone sodium and structure identification of its degradation products. Central South Pharm. 2014;12(2):106–9.  https://doi.org/10.7539/j.issn.1672-2981.2014.02.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tian Y, Lu L, Chang Y, Zhang DS, Li J, Feng YC, et al. Identification of a new isomer from a reversible isomerization of ceftriaxone in aqueous solution. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2015;102:326–30.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpba.2014.07.040.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yilmaz N, Ilhan S, Naziroglu M, Oktar S, Nacar A, Arica V, et al. Ceftriaxone ameliorates cyclosporine A-induced oxidative nephrotoxicity in rat. Cell Biochem Funct. 2011;29(2):102–7.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cbf.1727.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Abdel-Daim MM, El-Ghoneimy A. Synergistic protective effects of ceftriaxone and ascorbic acid against subacute deltamethrin-induced nephrotoxicity in rats. Ren Fail. 2015;37(2):297–304.  https://doi.org/10.3109/0886022X.2014.983017.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Abdel-Daim MM. Synergistic protective role of ceftriaxone and ascorbic acid against subacute diazinon-induced nephrotoxicity in rats. Cytotechnology. 2016;68(2):279–89.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10616-014-9779-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Stoeckel K, Trueb V, Ducach UC, McNamara PJ. Effect of probenecid on the elimination and protein binding of ceftriaxone. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1988;34:151–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Brown GR. Cephalosporin–probenecid drug interactions. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1993;24(4):289–300.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zhang Q, Dai GL, Ju WZ, Guo JM, Sun BT, Zong Y, et al. Determination of biding rates of human plasma protein with seven bioactive components in Danhong injection. Chin Pharmacol Bull. 2017;33(5):712–8.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Owoicho Orgah J, Wang M, Yang X, Wang Z, Wang D, Zhang Q, et al. Danhong injection protects against hypertension-induced renal injury via down-regulation of myoglobin expression in spontaneously hypertensive rats. Kidney Blood Press Res. 2018;43(1):12–24.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000486735.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tonelli M, Riella M. Chronic kidney disease and the ageing population. Lancet. 2014;383(9925):1278–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60155-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Blantz RC, Gabbai FB. Glomerular hemodynamics in pathophysiologic conditions. Am J Hypertens. 1989;2(11 Pt 2):208S–12S.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jiang Y, Lian YJ. Effects of Danhong injection on hemodynamics and the inflammation-related NF-κB signaling pathway in patients with acute cerebral infarction. Genet Mol Res. 2015;14(4):16929–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Department of PharmacyThe Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University of Chinese MedicineNanjingPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Jiangsu Collaborative Innovation Center of Chinese Medicinal Resources, Jiangsu Key Laboratory for High Technology Research of TCM Formulae, National and Local Collaborative Engineering Center of Chinese Medicinal Resources Industrialization and Formulae Innovative MedicineNanjing University of Chinese MedicineNanjingPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.Shanxi University of Traditional Chinese MedicineXianyangPeople’s Republic of China
  4. 4.Buchang PharmaXi’anPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations