Pharmacological differences between distribution

Several pharmacologic classes are available for the treatment and maintenance of IBD. Because there may be differences in the underlying disease process, distribution, and severity between CD and UC, response rates to drugs in the same pharmacologic class may differ between these two diseases. Therefore, initial selection of an appropriate agent for patients with active IBD should be designed to deliver maximum efficacy while minimizing toxicity. Response rates to individual classes of medications for both UC and CD will be discussed within the specific treatment section for each disease. 

Pharmacokinetics According to the product label, the pharmacokinetics of eptihbatide are linear and dose proportional. Plasma elimination half-life is approximately 2.5 hours. The extent of eptihbatide binding to human plasma protein is about 25% its mean volume of distribution is 185mPkg. Clearance in patients with coronary artery disease is 55-58 ml/kg per hour. Clinical studies have included 2418 patients with serum creatinine between 1.0 and 2.0mg/dl without dose adjustment. No data are available in patients with more severe degrees of renal impairment, but plasma eptihbatide levels are expected to be higher in such patients. Patients in clinical studies were older than the subjects in clinical pharmacology studies, and they had lower total body eptihbatide clearance and higher eptihbatide plasma levels. Men and women showed no important differences in the pharmacokinetics of eptihbatide. 

Costall et al. (21) have questioned the relevance of this alpha and beta nomenclature. These workers noted that many of the differences observed between dopamine congeners of the two types in eliciting peripheral and behavioral effects may be attributed to ability to penetrate into the CNS, differential distribution, and differing susceptibility to Inactivation by COMT or MAO. The question of relative potency In comparing alpha rotameric types with beta rotameric types Is heavily dependent on which type of bioassay is employed. This problem is compounded by the fact that a large number of novel dopamine agonist types have not been completely evaluated pharmacologically. Each laboratory seems to have a particular series of assays and it is seldom that a compound is examined in all relevant tests. 

---