English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

To evaluate and compare the pharmacokinetics of IM and oral firocoxib, and IM meloxicam, and detect their effect on renal function and average daily gain (ADG) in lambs undergoing tail docking and castration. Seventy-five male Romney lambs, aged 3–6 weeks, were randomised into five treatment groups (n = 15 per group): IM firocoxib (1 mg/kg); oral firocoxib (1 mg/kg); IM meloxicam (1 mg/kg); normal saline (approximately 2 mL, oral); or sham. Following the treatment administration, hot-iron tail docking and rubber ring castration were performed in all groups except the sham group, which did not undergo the procedures, but the animals were handled in the same manner as castrated and tail docked lambs. Blood samples were collected before and 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 24, 48, 72, 96 and 120 hours after treatment administration, and drug concentrations in plasma were quantified by liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry. Plasma urea and creatinine concentrations were determined at a commercial laboratory. Lamb body weights were recorded before and 2, 4 and 8 weeks after tail docking and castration. The pharmacokinetic analysis was carried out using a non-compartmental approach. Between-group and between-time-point differences were compared using mixed model analyses. There was no evidence for a difference in plasma elimination half-life between firocoxib given IM (LSM 18.6 (SE 1.4) hours), firocoxib given orally (LSM 18.2 (SE 1.4) hours), and meloxicam given IM (LSM 17. 0 (SE 1.4) hours). Firocoxib (IM) had a significantly greater volume of distribution (LSM 3.7 (SE 0.2) L/kg) than IM meloxicam (LSM 0.2 (SE 0.2) L/kg). Lambs in the meloxicam group had higher (p &lt; 0.05) plasma urea and creatinine concentrations than those in the firocoxib, saline and sham groups. Lambs’ ADG was decreased ( p  &lt; 0.01) compared to the other treatment groups in the 0–2 week period following meloxicam administration. Both formulations of firocoxib had a long plasma elimination half-life and large volume of distribution. There was a transient reduction in ADG in the meloxicam group, possibly due to mild renal toxicity. Comparative studies on dose–response effects of firocoxib and meloxicam in lambs following the procedures are required. Abbreviations : ADG: Average daily gain; C max : Maximum concentration; COX: Cyclooxygenase; LOD: Limit of detection; NSAID: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; CL: Plasma clearance; T 1/2el : Plasma elimination half-life; T max : Time to achieve C max ; V d : Volume of distribution

Pharmacokinetics and effect on renal function and average daily gain in lambs after castration and tail docking, of firocoxib and meloxicam