Comparison on bioequivalence of four phenytoin preparations in patients with multiple-dose treatment

Development of a Pediatric Relative Bioavailability/Bioequivalence Database and Identification of Putative Risk Factors Associated With Evaluation of Pediatric Oral Products

Generally, bioequivalence (BE) studies of drug products for pediatric patients are conducted in adults due to ethical reasons. Given the lack of direct BE assessment in pediatric populations, the aim of this work is to develop a database of BE and relative bioavailability (relative BA) studies conducted in pediatric populations and to enable the identification of risk factors associated with certain drug substances or products that may lead to failed BE or different pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters in relative BA studies in pediatrics. A literature search from 1965 to 2020 was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar to identify BE studies conducted in pediatric populations and relative BA studies conducted in pediatric populations. Overall, 79 studies covering 37 active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) were included in the database: 4 bioequivalence studies with data that passed BE evaluations; 2 studies showed bioinequivalence results; 34 relative BA studies showing comparable PK parameters, and 39 relative BA studies showing differences in PK parameters between test and reference products. Based on the above studies, common putative risk factors associated with differences in relative bioavailability (DRBA) in pediatric populations include age-related absorption effects, high inter-individual variability, and poor study design. A database containing 79 clinical studies on BE or relative BA in pediatrics has been developed. Putative risk factors associated with DRBA in pediatric populations are summarized.

Possible Mechanisms for the Pharmacokinetic Interaction Between Phenytoin and Folinate in Rats

The plasma concentration of phenytoin (PHT) is decreased by coadministration of folinate (leucovorin; LV), a folate (FA) analogue. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of LV on the pharmacokinetics of PHT in rats in vivo and to investigate the mechanism of the interaction. LV (50 mg/kg) was administered orally to rats concomitantly given intravenous PHT (50 mg/kg) to evaluate the effect of LV on the pharmacokinetics of PHT. The effect of LV on the plasma protein binding of PHT was investigated by using plasma from rats that had received oral LV. We also examined the effects of LV on the uptake of PHT into isolated rat hepatocytes and on the metabolism of PHT in isolated rat hepatocytes and rat hepatic microsomes. LV significantly increased the systemic clearance (2-fold) and liver-to-blood partition coefficient (1.24-fold) of PHT. However, it did not affect the plasma protein binding or hepatic uptake of PHT. LV increased the metabolism of PHT in isolated rat hepatocytes, with a significant 1.41-fold increase in the maximum rate of metabolism and a decrease in the Michaelis-Menten constant. On the other hand, 5-methyltetrahydrofolate (5-MTHF), a primary metabolite of LV and FA, significantly increased p-hydroxylation of PHT in rat hepatic microsomes, whereas LV and FA themselves had no effect. In conclusion, these results suggest that, in rats, LV, an FA analogue, decreases the plasma concentration of PHT by increasing the hepatic metabolism of PHT, and the increase in the PHT metabolism is, at least in part, attributable to 5-MTHF.

Are there potential problems with generic substitution of antiepileptic drugs?

In response to increasing cost pressures, healthcare systems are encouraging the use of generic medicines. This review explores potential problems with generic substitution of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). A broad search strategy identified approximately 70 relevant articles. Potential problems with generic substitution included: The limited evidence (mainly case reports with some pharmacokinetic studies) appears to support these concerns for older AEDs. As a result, restrictions on use of specific generic AEDs are in place in some countries and recommended by some lay epilepsy organisations. As more AEDs lose patent protection, it is important to examine the question of whether generic substitution may pose problems for patients with epilepsy, and whether there should be safeguards to ensure that both physician and patient are informed when generic substitution occurs.

A randomized, crossover, assessor-blind study of the bioequivalence of a single oral dose of 200 mg of four formulations of phenytoin sodium in healthy, normal Indian volunteers

The objective of the study was to compare the bioavailability of a single oral 200-mg dose of four brands of phenytoin sodium available in the Indian market. Dilantin, Epsolin, and M-toin were compared with Eptoin, which was taken as the reference standard. A randomized, assessor-blind, four-way crossover study was done in 12 healthy Indian volunteers. The study was conducted at a clinical pharmacology ward at King Edward VII Memorial Hospital, a tertiary referral center in Mumbai (Bombay). All 12 subjects received a single oral 200-mg dose of all the formulations with a 2-week washout period between the formulations. Blood samples for plasma phenytoin levels were collected at 0, 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours. Safety was measured by pretreatment and posttreatment biochemical investigations, physical examination, and ECG. The pharmacokinetics of the four brands of phenytoin were calculated by maximum plasma concentration (C(max)), time to reach C(max) (t(max)), area under the concentration versus time curve for time 0 to 72 hours (AUC(0-72)), and from time 0 to infinity (AUC(0- infinity)). For all brands, 90% CI of all untransformed and log transformed pharmacokinetic parameters failed to remain within prescribed limits of 80% to 120% for untransformed data and 80% to 125% for log transformed data. Since phenytoin obeys Micheles Mentens kinetics, the AUC methodology used for comparison would give only an approximate indication of relative bioavailability. M-toin was shown to be bioinequivalent to Eptoin. The other comparisons indicate but do not prove bioinequivalence of the other brands. The results of the study show that in India switching phenytoin brands could have significant implications and is not advisable once a patient is carefully titrated on one formulation.

Dual effect of valproic acid on the pharmacokinetics of phenytoin

To evaluate the effects of valproic acid on the disposition of phenytoin, a single dose of 600 mg valproic acid and multiple doses of valproic acid (200 mg four times a day for 5 days) were administered together with a single oral dose of 600 mg phenytoin to 12 young male volunteers. Fraction of unbound phenytoin and the area under curve (AUC) of the total and unbound phenytoin in plasma were compared with the control phase in which only 600 mg phenytoin was given. Valproic acid increased the unbound fraction of phenytoin in both single- and multiple-dose studies by 15 per cent and 41 per cent, respectively. Single-dose valproic acid increased the total AUC of phenytoin by 11 per cent. Multiple-dose valproic acid decreased the total AUC by 7 per cent. Single- and multiple-dose valproic acid increased the unbound AUC by 25 per cent and 18 per cent, respectively, probably due to the inhibition on the metabolizing enzymes. We concluded that there are at least two mechanisms involved in valproic acid-phenytoin interaction. Whereas valproic acid displacing phenytoin on the plasma protein decreased the total drug concentration of phenytoin, the enzyme inhibition by valproic acid increased both the total and unbound concentration of phenytoin. The two conflicting mechanisms may result in different effects on the total plasma concentration of phenytoin. Therapeutic drug monitoring based on the total concentration of phenytoin may be misleading when valproic acid is co-administered.