Pharmacokinetics of 1-(5-fluoro-2-pyridyl)-6-fluoro-7-(4-methyl-1- piperazinyl)-1,4-dihydro-4-oxoquinolone-3-carboxylic acid hydrochloride (DW-116), a new quinolone antibiotic in rats

The objectives of this study were to characterize the pharmacokinetics of 1-5-fluoro-2-pyridyl)-6-fluoro-7-(4-methyl-1- piperazinyl)-1,4-dihydro-4-oxoquinolone-3-carboxylic acid hydrochloride (DW-116), a newly developed quinolone antibiotic, and to compare these kinetics with those of ciprofloxacin and rufloxacin, representative quinolone antibiotics, in rats. Rats were subjected to surgery involving catheterization of the femoral vein and artery. DW-116 (4, 20, or 200 mg/kg), ciprofloxacin (20 mg/kg), or rufloxacin (20 mg/kg) was administered either intravenously (iv) or orally. Blood samples were collected at various times and subjected to an HPLC assay for the quinolones. Temporal profiles of plasma concentration after iv administrations of DW-116 at doses of 4, 20, and 200 mg/kg exhibited an apparent multiexponential decline. In the three doses examined, systemic clearance and steady-state volume of distribution of DW-116, calculated by model-independent methods, were in the range 0.17 approximately 0.23 L/h/kg and 2.90 approximately 4.44 L/kg, respectively. When DW-116 was given orally at doses of 4, 20, or 200 mg/kg, the AUC values were nearly identical to those following iv administration, indicating an almost complete absorption (i.e., the percent bioavailability was 90.0 for 4 mg/kg, 99.0 for 20 mg/kg, and 98.3 for 200 mg/kg) in the dose range examined. The absorption of DW-116 appears to be extremely rapid because the mean residence time calculated from the oral administration data was not significantly different from that for the iv administration. At a dose of 20 mg/kg, the mean residence time for iv administered ciprofloxacin and rufloxacin was smaller than that of DW-116, indicating that DW-116 remains in the body longer than the other quinolones. Absolute percent bioavailabilities of ciprofloxacin (69.9%) and rufloxacin (84.9%) were smaller than that obtained for DW-116 (99.0%). Because it has been reported that the in vivo antibacterial activity of DW-116 is comparable or superior to that of rufloxacin and ciprofloxacin, despite the fact that the in vitro activity is significantly lower, the pharmacokinetics of this antibiotic may be responsible, at least in part, for the enhanced in vivo antibacterial activity of DW-116.