Search

Generic substitution of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is still a matter of controversy and concern among clinicians and patients. We aimed to assess intrasubject variation in plasma concentrations of lamotrigine (LTG), levetiracetam (LEV) and topiramate (TPM) after generic substitution compared with a stable brand-name drug regimen in a population of patients with epilepsy. A retrospective analysis was performed on prospectively collected and stored data from our therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) database for the years 2009-2014. The main outcome variable was the proportion of patients who, after switching from branded to generic formulations, showed a greater than ±20% change in AED plasma concentrations compared to the proportion of control patients showing a change in AED plasma concentrations of the same extent while receiving stable branded formulations over repeated TDM tests. Fifty patients on LTG, 27 on LEV and 16 on TPM showing at least one TDM test while receiving generic products fulfilled the inclusion/exclusion criteria for the analysis and were compared with 200 control patients for LTG, 120 for LEV and 80 for TPM. The proportion of patients showing an intrasubject change greater than ±20% in AED plasma concentrations was similar in the brand name vs generic group compared with the control one for LTG (22% vs 33%) and LEV (44% vs 38%), while it was higher in the control group for TPM (41% vs 6%, p

We aimed to compare apparent steady-state oral clearance (CL/F) of the antiepileptic drug levetiracetam (LEV) in elderly (66-80 years, n=105) and very elderly (81-96 years, n=70) vs nonelderly (30-65 years, n=97) patients with epilepsy. Median weight-normalized CL/F (mLmin(-1)kg(-1)) decreased from 1.23 (nonelderly) to 0.83 (elderly) and 0.59 (very elderly) (p

Serial plasma samples collected after an acute administration of valproic acid, (VPA, 15 mg/kg as oral solution) in epileptic patients were selected for this study. The plasma samples were selected from three different groups of patients; patients on phenobarbital and phenytoin with clinical VPA intolerance (group A); patients on phenobarbital and phenytoin without clinical VPA toxicity (group B); and patients without phenobarbital and phenytoin and without clinical VPA toxicity (group C). Plasma samples from 6 patients per group were analyzed for carnitines and ammonia. Ammonia levels during acute study increased significantly (P less than 0.05) in patients who experienced VPA intolerance, while no changes were found in the other patients. After acute VPA administration, total carnitine was unchanged but free carnitine was decreased (P less than 0.05) and carnitine esters were increased (P less than 0.05) in all groups of patients studied. No difference in carnitine profiles was seen between patients with or without evidence of VPA administration has an important effect on carnitine metabolism. However, unlike the acute effect on ammonia metabolism, this acute effect does not seem to be correlated with any associated antiepileptic therapy, nor does it predict clinical VPA intolerance.

A retrospective study was conducted in 282 patients with epilepsy to assess the predictive performance of pharmacokinetic methods for individualizing dosage of phenytoin. Two population-based dosing methods (population clearance method and bayesian feedback method) and one individual-based method (the so-called linearized Michaelis-Menten method) were evaluated, when applicable, for single-point and/or 2-point dose predictions of phenytoin. In single-point predictions, we found a generally low percentage of dose calculations falling inside the +/- 10% range (48.9% and 51.1% for the population clearance and the bayesian methods, respectively). In 2-point predictions, the bayesian method was 'accurate' (dose within the +/- 10% range) in approximately 54.3% or 55.0% of cases (depending on the particular method of implementation adopted). An even worse percentage of 'accurate' dose predictions (38.3%) was obtained by using the linearized Michaelis-Menten method. Our data do not confirm results from previous studies indicating a generally good performance of pharmacokinetic methods for predicting phenytoin dosage.