Drug-drug interactions between antiseizure medications and antipsychotic medications: a narrative review and expert opinion.

INTRODUCTION: Antiseizure medications (ASMs) and antipsychotic drugs are frequently coadministered with the potential for drug-drug interactions. Interactions may either be pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic, resulting in a decrease or increase in efficacy and/or an increase or decrease in adverse effects. AREAS COVERED: The clinical evidence for pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions between ASMs and antipsychotics is reviewed based on the results of a literature search in MEDLINE conducted in April 2023. EXPERT OPINION: There is now extensive published evidence for the clinical importance of interactions between ASMs and antipsychotics. Enzyme-inducing ASMs can decrease blood concentrations of many of the antipsychotics. There is also evidence that enzyme-inhibiting ASMs can increase antipsychotic blood concentrations. Similarly, there is limited evidence showing that antipsychotic drugs may affect the blood concentrations of ASMs through pharmacokinetic interactions. There is less available evidence for pharmacodynamic interactions, but these can also be important, as can displacement from protein binding. The lack of published evidence for an interaction should not be interpreted as meaning that the given interaction does not occur; the evidence is building continually. There is no substitute for careful patient monitoring and sound clinical judgment.

Barriers to generic antiseizure medication use: Results of a global survey by the International League Against Epilepsy Generic Substitution Task Force.

The objective of this study was to identify and quantify barriers to generic substitution of antiseizure medications (ASM). A questionnaire on generic ASM substitution was developed by the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Task Force on Generic Substitution. Questions addressed understanding of bioequivalence, standards for generic products, experiences with substitution, and demographic data. The survey was web-based and distributed to ILAE chapters, their membership, and professional colleagues of task force members. Comparisons in responses were between ILAE regions and country income classification. A total of 800 individuals responded, with 44.2% being from the Asia-Oceania ILAE Region and 38.6% from European Region. The majority of respondents had little or no education in generic substitution or bioequivalence. Many respondents indicated lack of understanding aspects of generic substitution. Common barriers to generic substitution included limited access, poor or inconsistent quality, too expensive, or lack of regulatory control. Increase in seizures was the most common reported adverse outcome of substitution. Of medications on the World Health Organization Essential Medication list, problems with generic products were most frequent with carbamazepine, lamotrigine, and valproic acid. Several barriers with generic substitution of ASM revolved around mistrust of regulatory control and quality of generic ASM. Lack of education on generic substitution is also a concern. Generic ASM products may be the only option in some parts of the world and efforts should address these issues. Efforts to address these barriers should improve access to medications in all parts of the world.

Clinical implications of trials investigating drug-drug interactions between cannabidiol and enzyme inducers or inhibitors or common antiseizure drugs.

Highly purified cannabidiol (CBD) has demonstrated efficacy with an acceptable safety profile in patients with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome or Dravet syndrome in randomized, double-blind, add-on, controlled phase 3 trials. It is important to consider the possibility of drug-drug interactions (DDIs). Here, we review six trials of CBD (Epidiolex/Epidyolex; 100 mg/mL oral solution) in healthy volunteers or patients with epilepsy, which investigated potential interactions between CBD and enzymes involved in drug metabolism of common antiseizure drugs (ASDs). CBD did not affect CYP3A4 activity. Induction of CYP3A4 and CYP2C19 led to small reductions in exposure to CBD and its major metabolites. Inhibition of CYP3A4 activity did not affect CBD exposure and caused small increases in exposure to CBD metabolites. Inhibition of CYP2C19 activity led to a small increase in exposure to CBD and small decreases in exposure to CBD metabolites. One potentially clinically important DDI was identified: combination of CBD and clobazam (CLB) did not affect CBD or CLB exposure, but increased exposure to major metabolites of both compounds. Reduction of CLB dose may be considered if adverse reactions known to occur with CLB are experienced when it is coadministered with CBD. There was a small increase of exposure to stiripentol (STP) when coadministered with CBD. STP had no effect on CBD exposure but led to minor decreases in exposure to CBD metabolites. Combination of CBD and valproate (VPA) did not cause clinically important changes in the pharmacokinetics of either drug, or 2-propyl-4-pentenoic acid. Concomitant VPA caused small increases in exposure to CBD metabolites. Dose adjustments are not likely to be necessary when CBD is combined with STP or VPA. The safety results from these trials were consistent with the known safety profile of CBD. These trials indicate an overall low potential for DDIs between CBD and other ASDs, except for CLB.

Therapeutic drug monitoring of antiepileptic drugs: current status and future prospects.

Introduction: Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are the cornerstone of treatment of patients with epilepsy, and there are presently 27 licensed AEDs making AEDs among the most common medications for which therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is performed. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the current evidence of the use and implementation of AED TDM in patients with epilepsy and other non-epilepsy conditions.Areas covered: The pharmacokinetic variability of AEDs is extensive, resulting in pronounced variability in serum concentrations between patients. TDM may thus be useful to individualize the treatment of patients with epilepsy and also in non-epilepsy conditions. Indications for TDM include settings where pharmacokinetic variability is anticipated (e.g. in children, the elderly, during pregnancy, and patients prescribed polytherapy resulting in drug interactions) and drug adherence. TDM contributes to provide a quality assurance of the treatment. Patient management is, therefore, best guided by the determination of individual therapeutic concentrations.Expert opinion: Because of pharmacokinetic variability is prevalent among AEDs, TDM allows a bespoke approach to epilepsy care allowing dose adjustments based on measured drug concentrations so as to optimize clinical outcome. Future advances include the use of additional markers of toxicity and genetic variability so as to further aid individualization and optimize AED treatment.

Comparing healthcare cost associated with the use of enzyme-inducing and non-enzyme active antiepileptic drugs in elderly patients with epilepsy in the UK: a long-term retrospective, matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In elderly patients (≥65 years of age) with epilepsy who take medications for comorbid conditions, some antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) may alter the metabolism of other treatments and increase the risk of adverse consequences and healthcare utilisation. This analysis compares healthcare costs associated with enzyme-inducing AEDs (EIAEDs) and non-enzyme active AEDs (nEAAEDs) use in elderly patients with epilepsy. METHODS: This retrospective matched cohort study used the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) of UK primary care medical records, linked to the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database. Selected patients with epilepsy were ≥ 65 years and prescribed an EIAED or nEAAED between 2001 and 2010 (index) after ≥1 year without AEDs (baseline) and followed until the first occurrence of the following: end of HES data coverage, end of GP registration, or death; practice's up-to-standard status or addition of an AED belonging to another cohort or discontinuation of the last AED of that cohort. Propensity score matching reduced confounding factor effects between cohorts. Key outcomes included time to cohort treatment failure, time to index AED treatment failure, and direct healthcare costs in 2014 Pound Sterling (£) values. RESULTS: Overall, 1425 elderly patients were included: 964 with EIAEDs and 461 with nEAAEDs. At baseline, the EIAED cohort was older (mean age, 76.2 vs. 75.1 years) and a higher proportion were male. Baseline direct healthcare costs were similar. After matching (n = 210 each), and over the entire follow-up period, median monthly direct healthcare costs were higher for patients taking EIAEDs than nEAAEDs (£403 vs. £317; p = 0.0150, Mann-Whitney U). Costs were higher for patients remaining in the EIAED cohort after 3 follow-up years. The median time to cohort treatment failure for the EIAED cohort was 1110 days vs. 1175 days for the nEAAED cohort. CONCLUSION: Newly treated elderly patients with epilepsy were more likely to be prescribed EIAEDs than nEAAEDs. In matched cohorts, elderly patients with epilepsy treated with EIAEDs had higher average total direct and epilepsy-related healthcare costs than nEAAED-treated patients; this difference was greater than previously reported in the overall adult population. Changing treatment practices could improve patient care and reduce costs.

Volumetric Absorptive Microsampling: A New Sampling Tool for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Antiepileptic Drugs.

BACKGROUND: Volumetric absorptive microsampling (VAMS) is a novel sampling technique for the collection of fixed-volume capillary blood. In this study, a new analytical method was developed and used to quantify 14 different antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) and 2 active metabolites in samples collected by VAMS. These data were compared with concentration measurements in plasma. METHODS: The authors developed a selective and sensitive liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) assay to measure the concentrations of several AEDs in whole blood collected by VAMS, which were compared with a commercially available LC-MS/MS kit for AED monitoring in plasma. Drugs and internal standards were extracted from whole blood/plasma samples by a simple protein precipitation. RESULTS: An LC-MS/MS method analyzing VAMS samples was successfully developed and validated for the determination of various AED concentrations in whole blood according to EMA guidelines for bioanalytical method validation. Extraction recovery was between 91% and 110%. No matrix effect was found. The method was linear for all drugs with R ≥0.989 in all cases. Intra-assay and inter-assay reproducibility analyses demonstrated accuracy and precision within acceptance criteria. Carry over and interferences were negligible. No volumetric HCT% bias was found at 3 different HCT values (35%-55%) with recovery being consistently above 87%. Samples are very stable at temperatures ranging from -20°C to 37°C and for a 4-month period. Leftover EDTA samples from 133 patients were tested to determine concentration differences between plasma and whole blood sampled by VAMS. The resulting difference varied less than 15% apart from those drugs with a blood/plasma ratio (R) different from 1. CONCLUSIONS: The assay allows for highly sensitive and selective quantification of several AEDs in whole blood samples collected by VAMS. The developed method is accurate and precise and free from matrix effects and volumetric HCT% bias.

The effect of serum levetiracetam concentrations on therapeutic response and IL1-beta concentration in patients with epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: Assessment of the relevance between serum drug concentration to its therapeutic response is a valid monitoring strategy for the clinical efficacy of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Levetiracetam (LEV) is a broad spectrum AED with a possible anti-inflammatory effect. We aimed to determine the relationship between LEV concentrations and its therapeutic response, and the effect of LEV on IL1-beta concentrations in patients with epilepsy. METHODS: Patients on monotherapy (n = 7) or polytherapy (n = 15) with LEV for their seizures management were included. Blood samples of each patient were collected: just before LEV intake, 1 h, 2 h, 4 h and 8 h following the last dose. Serum LEV concentrations were measured by liquid chromatography mass spectrometry and IL1-beta concentrations by chemiluminescent immunometric assay. Concentration to dose (C/D) ratio values was used for analyses. LEV concentrations were compared between responders (≤1 seizure/month) and non-responders (>1 seizure/month) and patients with or without adverse reactions. IL1-beta concentrations before and at 2 h following LEV ingestion were compared in order to detect the effect of the increase in serum LEV concentration on IL1-beta. RESULTS: Although there was no change in LEV (C/D) ratio or LEV maximum concentration (Cmax)/D ratio of the responders and non-responders, the C/D ratio following 1 h of LEV intake (2.17 ± 0.59 kg.day/L) and Cmax/D ratio (2.25 ± 0.56 kg.day/L) in the patients with adverse effects was significantly higher than for the patients without adverse effects (1.09 ± 0.12 kg.day/L and 1.49 ± 0.14 kg.day/L respectively). A statistically significant decrease was found in the IL1-beta concentration to LEV (C/D) ratio with the increase in LEV concentration in patients on LEV monotherapy. CONCLUSION: The possible relationship between LEV Cmax and its therapeutic response or IL1-beta concentrations may be an importance indication of LEV antiepileptic efficacy. Consequently, monitoring LEV Cmax values may enhance LEV adherence because patients would be less likely to develop adverse effects.

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Antiepileptic Drugs in Epilepsy: A 2018 Update.

BACKGROUND: Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are the mainstay of epilepsy treatment. Since 1989, 18 new AEDs have been licensed for clinical use and there are now 27 licensed AEDs in total for the treatment of patients with epilepsy. Furthermore, several AEDs are also used for the management of other medical conditions, for example, pain and bipolar disorder. This has led to an increasingly widespread application of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of AEDs, making AEDs among the most common medications for which TDM is performed. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the indications for AED TDM, to provide key information for each individual AED in terms of the drug's prescribing indications, key pharmacokinetic characteristics, associated drug-drug pharmacokinetic interactions, and the value and the intricacies of TDM for each AED. The concept of the reference range is discussed as well as practical issues such as choice of sample types (total versus free concentrations in blood versus saliva) and sample collection and processing. METHODS: The present review is based on published articles and searches in PubMed and Google Scholar, last searched in March 2018, in addition to references from relevant articles. RESULTS: In total, 171 relevant references were identified and used to prepare this review. CONCLUSIONS: TDM provides a pragmatic approach to epilepsy care, in that bespoke dose adjustments are undertaken based on drug concentrations so as to optimize clinical outcome. For the older first-generation AEDs (carbamazepine, ethosuximide, phenobarbital, phenytoin, primidone, and valproic acid), much data have accumulated in this regard. However, this is occurring increasingly for the new AEDs (brivaracetam, eslicarbazepine acetate, felbamate, gabapentin, lacosamide, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, perampanel, piracetam, pregabalin, rufinamide, stiripentol, sulthiame, tiagabine, topiramate, vigabatrin, and zonisamide).

Serum protein binding of 25 antiepileptic drugs in a routine clinical setting: A comparison of free non-protein-bound concentrations.

OBJECTIVE: Given that only the free non-protein-bound concentration of an antiepileptic drug (AED) crosses the blood-brain barrier, entering the brain and producing an antiepileptic effect, knowledge and measurement of the free drug fraction is important. Such data are sparse, particularly for newer AEDs, and have arisen from the use of disparate methodologies and settings over the past six decades. We report on the protein binding of 25 AEDs that are available for clinical use, along with two pharmacologically active metabolites (carbamazepine-epoxide and N-desmethyl clobazam), using standardized methodology and under set conditions. METHODS: The protein binding of the various AEDs was undertaken in sera of 278 patients with epilepsy. Separation of the free non-protein-bound component was achieved by using ultracentrifugation (Amicon Centrifree Micropartition System) under set conditions: 500 µl serum volume; centrifugation at 1,000 g for 15 min, and at 25°C. Free and total AED concentrations were measured by use of fully validated liquid chromatography/mass spectroscopy (LC/MS) techniques. RESULTS: Gabapentin and pregabalin are non-protein-bound, whereas highly bound AEDs (≥88%) include clobazam, clonazepam, perampanel, retigabine, stiripentol, tiagabine, and valproic acid as well as the N-desmethyl-clobazam (89%) metabolite. The minimally bound drugs (<22%) include ethosuximide (21.8%), lacosamide (14.0%), levetiracetam (3.4%), topiramate, (19.5%) and vigabatrin (17.1%). Ten of the 25 AEDs exhibit moderate protein binding (mean range 27.7-74.8%). SIGNIFICANCE: These data provide a comprehensive comparison of serum protein binding of all available AEDs including the metabolites, carbamazepine-epoxide and N-desmethyl-clobazam. Knowledge of the free fraction of these AEDs can be used to optimize epilepsy treatment.

Brand-to-generic levetiracetam switch in patients with epilepsy in a routine clinical setting.

PURPOSE: The therapeutic equivalence of generic and brand antiepileptic drugs, based on studies performed on healthy volunteers, has been questioned. We compare, in a routine clinical setting, brand versus generic levetiracetam (LEV) bioequivalence in patients with epilepsy and also the clinical efficacy and tolerability of the substitution. METHODS: A prospective, open-label, non-randomized, steady-state, multiple-dose, bioequivalence study was conducted in 12 patients with epilepsy (5 females), with a mean age of 38.4±16.2 years. Patients treated with the brand LEV (Keppra; UCB Pharma) were closely followed for a four-week period and subsequently switched to a generic LEV (Pharmaten) and followed for another four-week period. Blood samples were collected at the end of each 4-week period, during a dose interval for each formulation, for LEV concentration measurements by liquid chromatography mass spectrometry. Steady-state area under the curve (AUC) and peak plasma concentration (Cmax) data were subjected to conventional average bioequivalence analysis. Secondary clinical outcomes, including seizure frequency and adverse events, were recorded. RESULTS: Patients had epilepsy for a mean period of 14.1±10.6years and the mean daily LEV dose was 2583.3±763.7mg. The mean AUC±SD and Cmax±SD was 288.4±86.3(mg/L)h and 37.8±10.4mg/L respectively for brand LEV and 319.2±104.7(mg/L)h and 41.6±12.3mg/L respectively for the generic LEV. Statistic analysis showed no statistical significant difference in bioequivalence. Also, no change in seizures frequency and/or adverse events was recorded. CONCLUSIONS: In our clinical setting, generic LEV was determined to be bioequivalent to brand LEV. Furthermore, seizures frequency or/and adverse events were not affected upon switching from brand to generic LEV.

Clinical efficacy of perampanel for partial-onset and primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Perampanel, a selective noncompetitive antagonist at the α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA) receptor, is highly effective in a wide range of experimental models. Although initially licensed as adjunctive therapy for partial seizures with or without secondary generalization in patients aged 12 years or older, the US Food and Drug Administration has recently approved its use in the treatment of primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures (PGTCS). This paper reviews the pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and tolerability of perampanel as an antiepileptic drug. RESULTS: After oral ingestion, perampanel is rapidly absorbed (T max, 0.5-2.5 hours), has a bioavailability of ~100%, and is highly protein bound (~95%) in plasma. It undergoes extensive (>90%) hepatic metabolism, primarily via cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4), with a half-life of 48 hours. Carbamazepine and other antiepileptic drugs can enhance its metabolism via induction of CYP3A4. Efficacy of perampanel in focal seizures has been extensively evaluated in Phase II and randomized, placebo-controlled Phase III trials. The efficacy in PGTCS has been reported in one class I study. In the treatment of focal seizures, perampanel showed significant dose-dependent median seizure reductions: 4 mg/d, 23%; 8 mg/d, 26%-31%; 12 mg/d, 18%-35%; and placebo, 10%-21%. The 50% responder rates were 15%-26%, 29%, 33%-38%, and 34%-36% for placebo, 4 mg/d, 8 mg/d, and 12 mg/d perampanel, respectively. Freedom from seizures was recorded in 0%-1.7% of the placebo group, 1.9% of the 2 mg group, 2.6%-4.4% of the 8 mg group, and 2.6%-6.5% of the 12 mg group. For PGTCS, the median seizure reduction was 76.5% for perampanel and 38.4% for placebo. The 50% responder rate was 64.2% for perampanel and 39.5% for placebo. Seizure freedom during maintenance phase was 30.9% for perampanel and 12.3% for placebo. Adverse effects included dose-dependent increases in the frequency of dizziness, somnolence, fatigue, irritability, falls, and probably nausea. CONCLUSION: Perampanel is effective in treating both partial-onset seizures and PGTCS.

Perampanel Serum Concentrations in Adults With Epilepsy: Effect of Dose, Age, Sex, and Concomitant Anti-Epileptic Drugs.

BACKGROUND: Perampanel (PMP), a noncompetitive α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA) glutamate receptor antagonist, is a novel anti-epileptic drug (AED) licensed for the adjunctive treatment of focal and generalized epilepsy. There is limited information on PMP's pharmacokinetics and drug interaction characteristics with concomitant AEDs. We have investigated the effects of PMP dose, age, sex, and coprescribed AEDs on serum PMP concentrations. METHODS: We used the database of a therapeutic drug monitoring unit at a tertiary epilepsy referral center to identify patients who had PMP as part of their treatment and extracted clinical information from their medical notes. Sera PMP concentrations were determined using liquid chromatography/mass spectroscopy. RESULTS: In total, 160 sera from 107 patients (66 females) aged 18-70 years and weighing 40-125 kg were identified. They were prescribed a median PMP dose of 6 mg/d (range 2-12 mg/d) and were coprescribed a variety of AEDs, including enzyme-inducing [carbamazepine (CBZ) and oxcarbazepine (OXC)] and enzyme-inhibiting (valproic acid) AEDs. A linear relationship was observed between PMP dose and serum concentrations (r = 0.714, P < 0.0005). Sex and age were found not to influence PMP serum concentration. Enzyme-inducing AEDs dose-dependently decreased PMP concentrations, with CBZ and OXC decreasing mean values by 69% and 37%, respectively. In contrast, although topiramate and phenytoin also decreased mean PMP concentrations by 18% and 13%, respectively, these changes did not achieve statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: PMP exhibits a linear dose-concentration relationship, with serum PMP concentrations being age and sex independent. CBZ and OXC can significantly decrease PMP concentrations, probably through an induction of CYP3A4-mediated metabolism.

The clinical pharmacology profile of the new antiepileptic drug perampanel: A novel noncompetitive AMPA receptor antagonist.

The clinical pharmacology profile of a drug critically determines its therapeutics, and this review summarizes the characteristics associated with the antiepileptic drug (AED) perampanel. A PubMed literature search was performed for perampanel. Congress abstract data are included where necessary and Eisai Ltd provided access to unpublished data on file. After oral ingestion, perampanel is rapidly absorbed and peak plasma concentrations occur 0.5-2.5 h later; its bioavailability is ~100%. Although the rate of perampanel absorption is slowed by food co-ingestion, the extent absorbed remains unchanged; therefore, perampanel can be administered without regard to meal times. The pharmacokinetics of perampanel are linear and predictable over the clinically relevant dose range (2-12 mg); perampanel is 95% protein-bound to albumin and α1-acid glycoprotein. Perampanel is extensively metabolized (>90%) in the liver, primarily by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4, to various pharmacologically inactive metabolites. In healthy volunteers, the apparent terminal half-life is ~105 h, whereas the calculated effective half-life is 48 h. These half-life values allow for once-daily dosing, which will aid patient compliance and in the event of a missed dose, will have minimal impact on seizure control. In healthy volunteers prescribed carbamazepine, half-life decreases to 25 h. Clearance values are not significantly different in adolescents (~13.0 ml/min) and the elderly (~10.5 ml/min) compared with adults (10.9 ml/min). Perampanel has minimal propensity to cause pharmacokinetic interactions. However, it is the target of such interactions and CYP3A4-inducing AEDs enhance its clearance; this can be used to advantage because dose titration can be faster and thus optimum therapeutic outcome can be achieved sooner. Perampanel 12 mg, but not 4 or 8 mg, enhances the metabolism of the progesterone component of the oral contraceptive pill, necessitating the need for an additional reliable contraceptive method. Overall, perampanel has a favorable clinical pharmacology profile, which should aid its clinical use.

Lacosamide serum concentrations in adult patients with epilepsy: the influence of gender, age, dose, and concomitant antiepileptic drugs.

OBJECTIVE: Lacosamide (LCM), a new antiepileptic drug (AED) approved as adjunctive therapy for the treatment of patients with partial-onset seizures, has limited pharmacokinetic and drug interaction data. The main objectives of the present study were to investigate the effects of dose, age, gender, and hepatic enzyme-inducing AEDs on the pharmacokinetics of LCM as assessed by steady state serum LCM values. METHODS: An LCM AED therapeutic drug monitoring database was analyzed with regard to LCM serum concentrations and other relevant patient and AED drug information. One hundred twenty eight sera were identified. These were collected from 68 women and 61 men aged 19-66 years, who were prescribed a median LCM dose of 300 mg (range 50-600 mg). RESULTS: Serum LCM concentrations were observed in the following main groupings: LCM monotherapy (n = 5), LCM with nonenzyme-inducing AEDs (n = 50), LCM with enzyme-inducing AEDs (n = 49), LCM with valproic acid (n = 20), and LCM with enzyme-inducing AEDs plus valproic acid (n = 4). Analysis of variance showed a correlation of dose with LCM concentrations (r = 0.53, P < 0.001), and women had statistically higher mean LCM concentration than did men, 37.2 ± 23.6 versus 26.8 ± 12.9 µmol/L (P = 0.001). Serum LCM concentrations were significantly lower (P = 0.002) in the enzyme-inducing AED group (carbamazepine and phenytoin) compared with the LCM monotherapy group and the nonenzyme-inducing group, 23.5 ± 11.0, 34.5 ± 7.7, and 32.7 ± 17.9 µmol/L, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Serum LCM concentrations increased dose dependently, were age independent, and were higher in women compared with men. Carbamazepine and phenytoin can significantly decrease serum LCM concentrations, probably via induction of LCM metabolism.

Drug interactions with the newer antiepileptic drugs (AEDs)--part 1: pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions between AEDs.

Since 1989 there has been an exponential introduction of new antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) into clinical practice and these include eslicarbazepine acetate, felbamate, gabapentin, lacosamide, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, perampanel, pregabalin, retigabine (ezogabine), rufinamide, stiripentol, tiagabine, topiramate, vigabatrin and zonisamide; 16 in total. Because often the treatment of epilepsy is lifelong, and because patients are commonly prescribed polytherapy with other AEDs, AED interactions are an important consideration in the treatment of epilepsy and indeed can be a major therapeutic challenge. For new AEDs, their propensity to interact is particularly important because inevitably they can only be prescribed, at least in the first instance, as adjunctive polytherapy. The present review details the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions that have been reported to occur with the new AEDs. Interaction study details are described, as necessary, so as to allow the reader to take a view as to the possible clinical significance of particular interactions. The principal pharmacokinetic interaction relates to hepatic enzyme induction or inhibition whilst pharmacodynamic interactions principally entail adverse effect synergism, although examples of anticonvulsant synergism also exist. Overall, the new AEDs are less interacting primarily because many are renally excreted or not hepatically metabolised (e.g. gabapentin, lacosamide, levetiracetam, topiramate, vigabatrin) and most do not (or minimally) induce or inhibit hepatic metabolism. A total of 139 pharmacokinetic interactions between concurrent AEDs have been described. The least pharmacokinetic interactions (n ≤ 5) are associated with gabapentin, lacosamide, tiagabine, vigabatrin and zonisamide, whilst lamotrigine (n = 17), felbamate (n = 15), oxcarbazepine (n = 14) and rufinamide (n = 13) are associated with the most. To date, felbamate, gabapentin, oxcarbazepine, perampanel, pregabalin, retigabine, rufinamide, stiripentol and zonisamide have not been associated with any pharmacodynamic interactions.

Epilepsy, cognition, and neuropsychiatry (Epilepsy, Brain, and Mind, part 2).

Epilepsy is, of course, not one disease but rather a huge number of disorders that can present with seizures. In common, they all reflect brain dysfunction. Moreover, they can affect the mind and, of course, behavior. While animals too may suffer from epilepsy, as far as we know, the electrical discharges are less likely to affect the mind and behavior, which is not surprising. While the epileptic seizures themselves are episodic, the mental and behavioral changes continue, in many cases, interictally. The episodic mental and behavioral manifestations are more dramatic, while the interictal ones are easier to study with anatomical and functional studies. The following extended summaries complement those presented in Part 1.

Drug interactions with the newer antiepileptic drugs (AEDs)--Part 2: pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions between AEDs and drugs used to treat non-epilepsy disorders.

Since antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are prescribed to treat various non-epilepsy-related disorders in addition to the fact that patients with epilepsy may develop concurrent disorders that will need treatment, the propensity for AEDs to interact with non-AEDs is considerable and indeed can present a difficult clinical problem. The present review details the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions that have been reported to occur with the new AEDs (eslicarbazepine acetate, felbamate, gabapentin, lacosamide, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, perampanel, pregabalin, retigabine (ezogabine), rufinamide, stiripentol, tiagabine, topiramate, vigabatrin and zonisamide) and drugs used to treat non-epilepsy disorders. Interaction study details are described, as necessary, so as to allow the reader to take a view as to the possible clinical significance of particular interactions. Pharmacokinetic interactions relate to hepatic enzyme induction or inhibition and involved a variety of drugs including psychoactive drugs, cardioactive drugs, oral contraceptives, antituberculous agents, analgesics and antineoplastic drugs. A total of 68 pharmacokinetic interactions have been described, with lamotrigine (n = 22), topiramate (n = 18) and oxcarbazepine (n = 7) being associated with most, whilst lacosamide, pregabalin, stiripentol and vigabatrin are associated with none. Overall, only three pharmacodynamic interactions have been described and occur with oxcarbazepine, perampanel and pregabalin.

Therapeutic drug monitoring of antiepileptic drugs by use of saliva.

Blood (serum/plasma) antiepileptic drug (AED) therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) has proven to be an invaluable surrogate marker for individualizing and optimizing the drug management of patients with epilepsy. Since 1989, there has been an exponential increase in AEDs with 23 currently licensed for clinical use, and recently, there has been renewed and extensive interest in the use of saliva as an alternative matrix for AED TDM. The advantages of saliva include the fact that for many AEDs it reflects the free (pharmacologically active) concentration in serum; it is readily sampled, can be sampled repetitively, and sampling is noninvasive; does not require the expertise of a phlebotomist; and is preferred by many patients, particularly children and the elderly. For each AED, this review summarizes the key pharmacokinetic characteristics relevant to the practice of TDM, discusses the use of other biological matrices with particular emphasis on saliva and the evidence that saliva concentration reflects those in serum. Also discussed are the indications for salivary AED TDM, the key factors to consider when saliva sampling is to be undertaken, and finally, a practical protocol is described so as to enable AED TDM to be applied optimally and effectively in the clinical setting. Overall, there is compelling evidence that salivary TDM can be usefully applied so as to optimize the treatment of epilepsy with carbamazepine, clobazam, ethosuximide, gabapentin, lacosamide, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, phenobarbital, phenytoin, primidone, topiramate, and zonisamide. Salivary TDM of valproic acid is probably not helpful, whereas for clonazepam, eslicarbazepine acetate, felbamate, pregabalin, retigabine, rufinamide, stiripentol, tiagabine, and vigabatrin, the data are sparse or nonexistent.