@article{wallace_love_gensler_jacob_robertson_messenger_2023, title={Comparative growth dynamics of bacterial and fungal contaminants in bupivacaine liposomal injectable suspension, bupivacaine 0.5%, and propofol}, volume={18}, ISSN={["1932-6203"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281768}, DOI={10.1371/journal.pone.0281768}, abstractNote={
Objective
To determine whether bupivacaine liposomal injectable suspension (BLIS) supports microbial growth when artificially inoculated and to evaluate liposomal stability in the face of this extrinsic contamination as evidenced by changes in free bupivacaine concentrations.


Study design
A randomized, prospective in vitro study in which three vials of each BLIS, bupivacaine 0.5%, and propofol were individually inoculated with known concentrations of Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, and Candida albicans (n = 36) to quantify bacterial and fungal growth was conducted. Over 120 hours, aliquots from contaminated vials were withdrawn, plated, and incubated to determine microbial concentrations. High-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) was used to evaluate free bupivacaine concentrations over time in BLIS. Data were analyzed using a mixed effects model with multiple comparisons.


Sample population
Twelve vials of each BLIS, bupivacaine 0.5%, and propofol.


Results
BLIS did not support significant growth of Staphylococcus aureus or Candida albicans at any time. BLIS supported significant growth of Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa beginning at the 24 hour time point. Bupivacaine 0.5% did not support significant growth of any organisms. Propofol supported significant growth of all organisms. Free bupivacaine concentrations changed minimally over time.


Conclusion
Bacterial and fungal contaminant growth in artificially inoculated BLIS is organism dependent. BLIS supports significant growth of Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Extra-label handling of BLIS should only be undertaken with caution and with adherence to strict aseptic technique.
}, number={2}, journal={PLOS ONE}, author={Wallace, Amber and Love, Lydia and Gensler, Catherine and Jacob, Megan and Robertson, James and Messenger, Kristen}, editor={Nevárez-Moorillón, Guadalupe VirginiaEditor}, year={2023}, month={Feb} }
 @article{enomoto_love_madsen_wallace_messenger_2022, title={Pharmacokinetics of intravenous, oral transmucosal, and intranasal buprenorphine in healthy male dogs}, ISSN={["1365-2885"]}, DOI={10.1111/jvp.13056}, abstractNote={AbstractEffective management of pain in animals is of critical importance but options are limited for treating acute pain in dogs on an outpatient basis. The objective of this study was to compare the plasma concentrations and pharmacokinetics of a concentrated solution of buprenorphine, 1.8 mg/ml (Simbadol™) administered intravenously, intranasally, and via the oral transmucosal (OTM) route in healthy male dogs. Five healthy castrated adult male Beagle‐cross dogs were included in this randomized blocked crossover study. The dogs received 0.03 mg/kg body weight buprenorphine intravenously, intranasally, or via the OTM route, with a minimum 72‐h washout period between treatments. Blood samples were collected at multiple intervals up to 24 h post administration and buprenorphine plasma concentrations were determined by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. Non‐compartmental pharmacokinetic analysis revealed that the area under the curve of intravenous, intranasal, and OTM routes were 28.0 (15.1–41.3) h × ng/ml, 16.1 (3.4–28.7) h × ng/ml and 10.8 (8.8–11.8) h × ng/ml, respectively. The bioavailability of intranasal and OTM routes were 57.5 (22.7–93.7)% and 41.1 (25.5–69.4)%, respectively. Intranasal and OTM routes of administration of concentrated buprenorphine in dogs may allow for the provision of analgesic care at home.}, journal={JOURNAL OF VETERINARY PHARMACOLOGY AND THERAPEUTICS}, author={Enomoto, Hiroko and Love, Lydia and Madsen, Melanie and Wallace, Amber and Messenger, Kristen M.}, year={2022}, month={Apr} }