Search

1. Abstract Lamotrigine (LTG) is a second-generation anti-epileptic drug widely used for focal and generalized seizures in adults and children, and as a first line medication in pregnant women and women of childbearing age. However, LTG pharmacokinetics shows high inter-individual variability, thus potentially leading to therapeutic failure or side effects in patients. This prospective study aimed to establish a population pharmacokinetics model for LTG in Chinese patients with epilepsy and to investigate the effects of genetic variants in uridine diphosphate glucuronosyltransferase (UGT)1A4, UGT2B7, MDR1, ABCG2, ABCC2 and SLC22A1, as well as non-genetic factors, on LTG pharmacokinetics. The study population consisted of 89 patients with epilepsy, with 419 concentrations of LTG. A nonlinear mixed effects model was implemented in NONMEM software. A one-compartment model with first-order input and first-order elimination was found to adequately characterize LTG concentration. The population estimates of the apparent volume of distribution (V/F) and apparent clearance (CL/F) were 12.7 L and 1.11 L/h, respectively. The use of valproic acid decreased CL/F by 38.5%, whereas the co-administration of rifampicin caused an increase in CL/F of 64.7%. The CL/F decreased by 52.5% in SLC22A1-1222AA carriers. Patients with the ABCG2-34AA genotype had a 42.0% decrease in V/F, whereas patients with the MDR1-2677TT and C3435TT genotypes had a 136% increase in V/F. No obvious genetic effect of UGT enzymes was found relative to the concentrations of LTG in Chinese patients. Recommended dose regimens for patients with different gene polymorphisms and comedications were estimated on the basis of Monte Carlo simulations and the established model. These findings should be valuable for developing individualized dosage regimens in adult and adolescent Chinese patients 13–65 years of age.

The objective of this study is to compare the normalized prediction distribution errors (NPDE) and the visual predictive check (VPC) on model evaluation under different study designs. In this study, simulation method was utilized to investigate the capability of NPDE and VPC to evaluate the models. Data from the false models were generated by biased parameter typical value or inaccurate parameter inter-individual variability after single or multiple doses with the same sampling time or multiple doses with varied sampling time, respectively. The results showed that there was no clear statistic test for VPC and it was difficult to make sense of VPC under the multiple doses with varied sampling time. However, there were corresponding statistic tests for NPDE and the factor of study design did not affect NPDE significantly. It suggested that the clinical data and model which VPC was not fit for could be evaluated by NPDE.