Pharmacokinetic, sedative, and physiological effects of oral compounded formulations of trazodone alone or in combination with gabapentin in male cats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Trazodone and gabapentin are common oral sedatives in cats, used alone or combined, but no pharmacokinetic studies exist for trazodone in this species. The objective of this study was to determine the pharmacokinetics of oral trazodone (T) alone, or in combination with gabapentin (G) in healthy cats. Cats (n = 6) were randomly allocated to receive T (3 mg/kg) intravenously (IV), T (5 mg/kg) orally (PO), or T (5 mg/kg) and G (10 mg/kg) PO with a 1‐week washout period between treatments. Heart rate, respiratory rate, indirect blood pressure, and level of sedation were assessed, and venous blood samples were collected serially over 24 h. Analysis of plasma trazodone concentration was performed using liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS). Oral T administration resulted in a bioavailability of 54.9(7–96)%, and 17.2(11–25)% when administered with G. Tmax 0.17 (0.17–0.5) and 0.17 (0.17–0.75) h; Cmax 1.67 ± 0.91 and 1.22 ± 0.54 μg/mL, AUC 5.23 (2.0–18.76) and 2.37 (1.17–7.80) h*μg/mL; T1/2 5.12 ± 2.56 and 4.71 ± 1.07 h; for T and TG, respectively. Sedation was significant when compared to baseline in all groups from 20 or 45 min to 8 h indicating some lag between peak plasma concentration and sedative effects. Physiological variables remained within normal limits. This study concludes that oral trazodone is rapidly absorbed in healthy cats. Addition of gabapentin did not result in more profound sedation, showing no clinical advantage of combining these drugs in this study population.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".