Effect of cimetidine on pharmacokinetics of orally administered cyclosporine in healthy dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the pharmacokinetics of cyclosporine (CyA) in healthy dogs after oral administration alone or in combination with orally administered cimetidine. ANIMALS: 10 healthy adult Beagles. PROCEDURE: Dogs were randomly assigned to receive CyA alone or CyA in combination with cimetidine. After a washout period of 2 weeks, dogs then received the alternate treatment. The CyA plus cimetidine treatment required administration of cimetidine (15 mg/kg of body weight, PO, q 8 h) for 8 days and administration of CyA (5 mg/kg, PO, q 24 h) on days 6 through 8. The CyA treatment alone required administration of CyA (5 mg/kg, PO, q 24 h) for 3 days. On the third day of CyA administration during each treatment, blood samples were collected immediately before (time 0) and 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 21, and 24 hours after initiating CyA administration. RESULTS: Time until maximum CyA concentration was significantly longer for CyA in combination with cimetidine. Assessment of estimated pharmacokinetic variables revealed a significantly faster rate of change in the distribution phase for CyA in combination with cimetidine. Maximum CyA concentration differed significantly among dogs but did not differ significantly between treatments. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Analysis of our data suggests that cimetidine may affect absorption of orally administered CyA, but overall, it does not affect the pharmacokinetics of CyA. There is considerable variability in the maximum concentration of CyA among dogs, and monitoring of blood concentrations of CyA during treatment is advised.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".