Steady-state pharmacokinetics of lamotrigine when converting from a twice-daily immediate-release to a once-daily extended-release formulation in subjects with epilepsy (The COMPASS Study).

PURPOSE: To compare the pharmacokinetics (PK) of lamotrigine (LTG) when converting from twice-daily immediate-release (LTG-IR) to once-daily extended-release (LTG-XR) in subjects with epilepsy. METHODS: An open-label, conversion study was conducted, consisting of a 2-week LTG-IR Baseline Phase, followed by a 2-week LTG-XR Treatment Phase and a 1-week LTG-IR Phase. Forty-four subjects (> or =13 years of age) were enrolled and grouped as metabolically neutral (15), induced (15), or inhibited (14) based on the effects of the concomitant antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) on the clearance of LTG. The primary outcome was LTG PK parameters upon conversion. Secondary outcomes included seizure frequency, adverse events, and subject's preference. RESULTS: LTG-XR and LTG-IR regimens were similar with respect to area under curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC (0-24)), apart from the induced group, where the AUC (0-24) of LTG-XR was on average 21% lower than for LTG-IR. A reduction in the LTG Cmax was observed for LTG-XR compared to LTG-IR resulting in a decrease in the peak-to-trough fluctuation in serum LTG concentrations. The steady-state, dose-normalized, trough concentrations for LTG-XR were similar to those of LTG-IR. The median time to peak concentration (Tmax) following administration of LTG-XR ranged from 4 to 6 h, 6 to 10 h, and 9 to 11 h in the induced, neutral, and inhibited groups, respectively. In comparison, the median Tmax following administration of LTG-IR was between 1 and 1.5 h. CONCLUSIONS: Trough concentrations of LTG can be maintained on conversion from twice-daily LTG-IR to once-daily LTG-XR at the same total daily dose

Reflections on monotherapy trials for epilepsy – Authors' reply

Non disponibil

Is a separate monotherapy indication warranted for antiepileptic drugs?

Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are the only neurotherapeutics for which regulatory approval is consistently separated into monotherapy or adjunctive-therapy indications. Because head-to-head comparisons of AEDs (used in the European Union to approve drugs for monotherapy) have not shown substantial differences in efficacy between drugs, FDA approval for use of an AED as monotherapy has typically been based on trials with novel designs that have been criticised for reasons of ethics and clinical relevance. Many new-generation AEDs have not been approved for monotherapy, causing drug labelling and real-world use to be increasingly inconsistent, with negative consequences for patients. The regulatory requirement for separate monotherapy and adjunctive-therapy indications in epilepsy is unnecessarily restrictive. We recommend that regulatory agencies approve AEDs for the treatment of specific seizure types or epilepsy syndromes, irrespective of concomitant drug use

Adjunctive transdermal cannabidiol for adults with focal epilepsy: a randomized clinical trial.

Cannabidiol has shown efficacy in randomized clinical trials for drug-resistant epilepsy in specific syndromes that predominantly affect children. However, high-level evidence for the efficacy and safety of cannabidiol in the most common form of drug-resistant epilepsy in adults, focal epilepsy, is lacking. Question: What is the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of transdermally administered cannabidiol in adults with drug-resistant focal epilepsy? Findings: In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter clinical trial of 188 patients, no difference was found in seizure frequency at week 12 of the double-blind period among the placebo, 195-mg cannabidiol, and 390-mg cannabidiol treatments. The open-label extension demonstrated the long-term safety, tolerability, and acceptability of transdermal cannabidiol delivery, with a seizure reduction of at least 50% in more than half of the patients by month 6 of the trial. Meaning: Although cannabidiol did not perform significantly better than placebo in this trial, it was well tolerated and safe; future studies to assess the effect of higher doses may be warranted