PetCaseFinder

Peer-reviewed veterinary case report

How pimobendan medicine works in healthy dogs after rectal use

By Her, Jiwoong et al.·Published in Frontiers in veterinary science·2020·Department of Clinical Sciences, United States·View original on PubMed

PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →

Original publication title: Pharmacokinetics of Pimobendan and Its Metabolite O-Desmethyl-Pimobendan Following Rectal Administration to Healthy Dogs.

Species:
dog

Plain-English summary

A group of eight healthy dogs received a heart medication called pimobendan, both by mouth and rectally, to see how well it worked in each method. The study found that when given by mouth, the medication reached higher levels in the dogs' blood compared to when given rectally. However, the rectal administration still provided enough of the medication to potentially help dogs with heart problems who can't take pills. This research suggests that rectal administration of pimobendan could be a viable option for treating dogs with congestive heart failure.

People also search for: dog heart medication pimobendan · how to give dog medicine rectally · congestive heart failure treatment for dogs

Abstract

This study describes the pharmacokinetics of parent pimobendan (PIM) and its active metabolite, o-desmethyl-pimobendan (ODMP), after oral and rectal administration of pimobendan to healthy dogs.A total of eight healthy privately owned dogs were used in this study.The dogs received a single dose (0.5 mg/kg) of a commercially available pimobendan tablet per os (PO). Twelve blood samples were collected over a 12-h period for pharmacokinetic analysis. After a 24-h washout period, the dogs received the same dose of pimobendan solution per rectum (PR), and samples were obtained at the same time for analysis.For PIM, PO vs. PR, respectively, the mean maximum plasma concentration (, ng/ml) was 49.1 &#xb1; 28.7 vs. 10.1 &#xb1; 2, the time to reach a maximum concentration (, h) was 2.1 &#xb1; 0.9 vs. 1 &#xb1; 0.4, the disappearance half-life (, h) was 1.8 &#xb1; 0.8 vs. 2.2 &#xb1; 0.6, and the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC, ngh/ml) was 148.4 &#xb1; 71.6 vs. 31.1 &#xb1; 11.9, with relative bioavailability (, %) of 25 &#xb1; 8. For ODMP, PO vs. PR, respectively,was 30.9 &#xb1; 10.4 vs. 8.8 &#xb1; 4.8,was 3.2 &#xb1; 1.6 vs. 1.7 &#xb1; 1.1, andwas 5.0 &#xb1; 2.7 vs. 8.3 &#xb1; 4.8, with AUC of 167.8 &#xb1; 36.2 vs. 50.1 &#xb1; 19.2 andof 28 &#xb1; 6. The differences between PO and PR were significant (< 0.03) for AUC andfor both PIM and ODMP.The pharmacokinetics of PIM and ODMP were described following PO and PR administration. The findings suggest that pimobendan PR might achieve effective concentrations and, as such, warrant future studies of clinical effectiveness in treating dogs with congestive heart failure and which are unable to receive medication PO.

Find similar cases for your pet

PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.

Search related cases →

Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32851013/