Indexé dans
- Base de données des revues académiques
- Ouvrir la porte J
- Genamics JournalSeek
- Clés académiques
- JournalTOCs
- Infrastructure nationale des connaissances en Chine (CNKI)
- CiteFactor
- Scimago
- Répertoire des périodiques d'Ulrich
- Bibliothèque des revues électroniques
- RechercheRef
- Université Hamdard
- EBSCO AZ
- OCLC - WorldCat
- Catalogue en ligne SWB
- Bibliothèque virtuelle de biologie (vifabio)
- Publions
- MIAR
- Commission des bourses universitaires
- Fondation genevoise pour la formation et la recherche médicales
- Pub européen
- Google Scholar
Liens utiles
Partager cette page
Dépliant de journal
Revues en libre accès
- Agriculture et aquaculture
- Alimentation et nutrition
- Biochimie
- Bioinformatique et biologie des systèmes
- Business & Management
- Chimie
- Génétique et biologie moléculaire
- Immunologie & Microbiologie
- Ingénierie
- La science des matériaux
- Neurosciences & Psychologie
- Science générale
- Sciences cliniques
- Sciences environnementales
- Sciences médicales
- Sciences pharmaceutiques
- Sciences vétérinaires
- Soins infirmiers et soins de santé
Abstrait
Pharmacokinetic Comparison of Two Gabapentin Formulations in Healthy Volunteers
Wen Yao Mak, Siew Siew Tan, Jia Woei Wong, Siaw Kuen Chin, Ai Boey Lim, Ean Peng Soon, Irene Looi and Kah Hay Yuen
The objective of the study was to establish bioequivalence between a local generic against the innovator product of gabapentin 300 mg. The study design was a standard two-way crossover, open-label, randomised and single dose study in 24 healthy male volunteers under fasting condition. The washout period was 7 days between both periods to allow adequate drug elimination. Liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry was utilised to determine gabapentin concentration in plasma. Non-compartmental model was used to analyse Tmax, Cmax, AUC0-t, AUC0-∞, t1/2 and ke. Potential adverse events were closely monitored and recorded throughout the study. The study found all pharmacokinetic parameters were within the bioequivalence limit of 80.00%-125.00%, with minimum side effects. In conclusion, the generic product was bioequivalent to the innovator product.