Pregabalin and gabapentin share a similar mechanism of action, inhibiting calcium influx and subsequent release of excitatory neurotransmitters; however, the compounds differ in their pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics. Gabapentin is absorbed slowly after oral administration, with maximum plasma concentrations attained within 3-4 hours. Orally administered gabapentin exhibits saturable absorption--a nonlinear (zero-order) process--making its pharmacokinetics less predictable. Plasma concentrations of gabapentin do not increase proportionally with increasing dose. In contrast, orally administered pregabalin is absorbed more rapidly, with maximum plasma concentrations attained within 1 hour. Absorption is linear (first order), with plasma concentrations increasing proportionately with increasing dose. The absolute bioavailability of gabapentin drops from 60% to 33% as the dosage increases from 900 to 3600 mg/day, while the absolute bioavailability of pregabalin remains at > or = 90% irrespective of the dosage. Both drugs can be given without regard to meals. Neither drug binds to plasma proteins. Neither drug is metabolized by nor inhibits hepatic enzymes that are responsible for the metabolism of other drugs. Both drugs are excreted renally, with elimination half-lives of approximately 6 hours. Pregabalin and gabapentin both show dose-response relationships in the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia and partial seizures. For neuropathic pain, a pregabalin dosage of 450 mg/day appears to reduce pain comparably to the predicted maximum effect of gabapentin. As an antiepileptic, pregabalin may be more effective than gabapentin, on the basis of the magnitude of the reduction in the seizure frequency. In conclusion, pregabalin appears to have some distinct pharmacokinetic advantages over gabapentin that may translate into an improved pharmacodynamic effect.

No abstract

An exposure-response (E-R) analysis using linear mixed effects modeling was conducted on data from a thorough QTc trial for asenapine in 148 patients with schizophrenia. In a parallel design, patients received asenapine 5 mg twice daily (BID) for 10 days (10d) followed by 10 mg BID (6d), asenapine 15 mg BID (10d) followed by 20 mg BID (6d), quetiapine 375 mg BID (for assay sensitivity; 16d) or placebo (16d). Triplicate 12-lead electrocardiograms and concentration measurements were obtained on day -1 (baseline), 1, 10, and 16 at 8 scheduled times on each day. At mean C(max) for all asenapine doses, the E-R model predicted that the mean QTcF increase was less than 5 milliseconds, the International Conference on Harmonisation-established threshold for clinical concern. The model predicted a mean increase of 7 to 8 milliseconds for quetiapine. The corresponding upper bounds of the 95% confidence intervals were 7.5 milliseconds and 11.2 milliseconds for asenapine and quetiapine, respectively.

Erythropoietin elimination via EpoR in the bone marrow was non-linear and increased following phlebotomy-induced anemia. This is consistent with an up-regulation of the erythropoietic EpoR pool in BM. Assuming that the elimination of Epo after BM ablation was via non-hematopoietic EpoR, then this post-ablation EpoR population was not significantly up-regulated by the phlebotomy.

No abstract