Pharmacokinetic Profiles of Gabapentin after Oral and Subcutaneous Administration in Black-tailed Prairie Dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus).

In veterinary and human medicine, gabapentin (a chemical analog of γ-aminobutyric acid) is commonly prescribed to treat postoperative and chronic neuropathic pain. This study explored the pharmacokinetics of oral and subcutaneous administration of gabapentin at high (80 mg/kg) and low (30 mg/kg) doses as a potential analgesic in black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus; n = 24). The doses (30 and 80 mg/kg) and half maximal effective concentration (1.4 to 16.7 ng/mL) for this study were extrapolated from pharmacokinetic efficacy studies in rats, rabbits, and cats. Gabapentin in plasma was measured by using an immunoassay, and data were evaluated using noncompartmental analysis. The peak plasma concentrations (mean ±1 SD) were 42.6 ±14.8 and 115.5 ±15.2 ng/mL, respectively, after 30 and 80 mg/kg SC and 14.5 ±3.5 and 20.7 ±6.1 ng/mL after the low and high oral dosages, respectively. All peak plasma concentrations of gabapentin occurred within 5 h of administration. Disappearance half-lives for the low and high oral doses were 7.4 ± 6.0 h and 5.0 ± 0.8 h, respectively. The results of this study demonstrate that oral administration of gabapentin at low (30 mg/kg) doses likely would achieve and maintain plasma concentrations at half maximum effective concentration for 12 h, making it a viable option for an every 12-h treatment.

Sterile field contamination from powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) versus contamination from surgical masks.

BACKGROUND: Currently, powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) are not recommended for usage in close proximity to sterile fields owing to concerns that exhaled, unfiltered air potentially may cause contamination; however, this has not been confirmed by experimental study. METHODS: After establishing background levels of airborne contamination, our team placed settling plates in a sterile field and collected contamination from participants who were performing particulate-generating actions. Participants performed the actions while wearing various forms of respiratory protection, including: (1) a full facepiece PAPR, (2) a full facepiece PAPR with a shoulder-length hood, (3) a surgical mask, and (4) no facial covering (as a positive control to determine contamination-reduction effectiveness). Specimens were collected at the end of a 10-minute sampling time frame. After incubation at 36.5˚C for 72 hours, we tabulated colony forming units as a marker of contamination. RESULTS: Surgical masks and the 2 PAPR configurations all drastically reduced aerosolized droplet contamination. Surgical masks reduced contamination by 98.48%, and both PAPRs reduced contamination by 100% (compared with the usage of no facial covering). There was no statistical difference between their effectiveness (surgical mask vs both PAPRs, P value = .588 and no hood PAPR vs hood PAPR, P value >.999). DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS: Based on these findings, the tested PAPR configurations are effective at reducing aerosolized droplet contamination into a sterile field, and further testing is warranted to assess other PAPR configurations as well as PAPR suitability in an operating room.