The effect of concurrent clopidogrel and omeprazole administration on clopidogrel metabolism and platelet function in healthy cats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Some studies in humans show that the concurrent use of clopidogrel and omeprazole decreases plasma clopidogrel active metabolite (CAM) concentrations and clopidogrel antiplatelet effects. Whether this drug interaction occurs in cats is unknown. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that administration of clopidogrel with omeprazole would decrease plasma CAM concentrations and decrease clopidogrel antiplatelet effects in healthy cats. ANIMALS: Ten domestic cats. METHODS: In this 2-sequence, 2-period, 2-treatment randomized crossover study, healthy cats were randomly assigned to receive clopidogrel only (18.75 mg PO q24h) or clopidogrel with omeprazole (1 mg/kg PO q12h) for 10 days, followed by a 2-week washout period, and then the opposite treatment for another 10 days. Blood was collected by jugular venipuncture on days 0, 5, and 10. Plasma CAM concentrations were measured using high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Platelet function was evaluated using Plateletworks, Multiplate Analyzer, and Platelet Function Analyzer-100 (PFA-100). RESULTS: Multiplate Analyzer and PFA-100 detected no difference in platelet function between days or treatment groups. Plateletworks detected a significant difference (P < .001) in platelet function from day 0 to 5 and day 0 to 10 in both treatment groups but no difference between treatment groups. Plasma CAM concentrations were significantly lower on day 10 (P < .02) in cats receiving both medications versus clopidogrel only. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Concurrent omeprazole and clopidogrel administration was associated with altered pharmacokinetics on day 10, but no difference in pharmacodynamics between the 2 treatment groups. The short-term use of clopidogrel and omeprazole does not seem to alter platelet function significantly.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".