Carbamazepine: a clinical biopharmaceutical study

Applying Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling to Interpret Carbamazepine's Nonlinear Pharmacokinetics and Its Induction Potential on Cytochrome P450 3A4 and Cytochrome P450 2C9 Enzymes

Carbamazepine (CBZ) is commonly prescribed for epilepsy and frequently used in polypharmacy. However, concerns arise regarding its ability to induce the metabolism of other drugs, including itself, potentially leading to the undertreatment of co-administered drugs. Additionally, CBZ exhibits nonlinear pharmacokinetics (PK), but the root causes have not been fully studied. This study aims to investigate the mechanisms behind CBZ's nonlinear PK and its induction potential on CYP3A4 and CYP2C9 enzymes. To achieve this, we developed and validated a physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) parent-metabolite model of CBZ and its active metabolite Carbamazepine-10,11-epoxide in GastroPlus®. The model was utilized for Drug-Drug Interaction (DDI) prediction with CYP3A4 and CYP2C9 victim drugs and to further explore the underlying mechanisms behind CBZ's nonlinear PK. The model accurately recapitulated CBZ plasma PK. Good DDI performance was demonstrated by the prediction of CBZ DDIs with quinidine, dolutegravir, phenytoin, and tolbutamide; however, with midazolam, the predicted/observed DDI AUClast ratio was 0.49 (slightly outside of the two-fold range). CBZ's nonlinear PK can be attributed to its nonlinear metabolism caused by autoinduction, as well as nonlinear absorption due to poor solubility. In further applications, the model can help understand DDI potential when CBZ serves as a CYP3A4 and CYP2C9 inducer.

Biowaiver Monograph for Immediate-Release Solid Oral Dosage Forms: Carbamazepine

Literature relevant to assessing whether BCS-based biowaivers can be applied to immediate release (IR) solid oral dosage forms containing carbamazepine as the single active pharmaceutical ingredient are reviewed. Carbamazepine, which is used for the prophylactic therapy of epilepsy, is a non-ionizable drug that cannot be considered "highly soluble" across the range of pH values usually encountered in the upper gastrointestinal tract. Furthermore, evidence in the open literature suggests that carbamazepine is a BCS Class 2 drug. Nevertheless, the oral absolute bioavailability of carbamazepine lies between 70 and 78% and both in vivo and in vitro data support the classification of carbamazepine as a highly permeable drug. Since the therapeutic and toxic plasma level ranges overlap, carbamazepine is considered to have a narrow therapeutic index. For these reasons, a BCS based biowaiver for IR tablets of carbamazepine cannot be recommended. Interestingly, in nine out of ten studies, USP dissolution conditions (900 mL water with 1% SLS, paddle, 75 rpm) appropriately discriminated among bioinequivalent products and this may be a way forward to predicting whether a given formulation will be bioequivalent to the comparator product.

In Vivo Predictive Dissolution (IPD) for Carbamazepine Formulations: Additional Evidence Regarding a Biopredictive Dissolution Medium

The aim of the present study was to bring additional evidence regarding a biopredictive dissolution medium containing 1% sodium lauryl sulphate (SLS) to predict the in vivo behavior of carbamazepine (CBZ) products. Twelve healthy volunteers took one immediate release (IR) dose of either test and reference formulations in a bioequivalence study (BE). Dissolution profiles were carried-out using the medium. Level A in vitro–in vivo correlations (IVIVC) were established using both one-step and two-step approaches as well as exploring the time-scaling approach to account for the differences in dissolution rate in vitro versus in vivo. A detailed step by step calculation was provided to clearly illustrate all the procedures. The results show additional evidence that the medium containing 1% SLS can be classified as a universal biopredictive dissolution tool, and that both of the approaches used to develop the IVIVC (one and two-steps) provide good in vivo predictability. Therefore, this biopredictive medium could be a highly relevant tool in Latin-American countries to ensure and check the quality of their CBZ marketed products for which BE studies were not requested by their regulatory health authorities.

Immediate-release versus controlled-release carbamazepine in the treatment of epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Carbamazepine (CBZ) is a commonly used drug for epilepsy that is associated with troublesome adverse events including dizziness, double vision, drowsiness, poor co-ordination and unsteadiness. These adverse events often occur during peaks in drug plasma concentration. These adverse events may limit the daily dose of CBZ that can be tolerated and reduce the chances of seizure control in patients who require high doses. A controlled-release formulation of CBZ delivers the same dose over a longer period of time when compared to a standard immediate-release formulation, thereby reducing post-dose peaks in CBZ plasma concentration and potentially reducing adverse events.This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 12, 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of immediate-release CBZ (IR CBZ) versus controlled-release CBZ (CR CBZ) in patients diagnosed with epilepsy.The following review questions were investigated.(1) For newly diagnosed patients commencing CBZ, how do IR and CR formulations compare for efficacy and tolerability?(2) For patients on established treatment with IR CBZ but experiencing unacceptable adverse events, what is the effect on seizure control and the tolerability of a switch to a CR formulation versus remaining on the IR formulation?

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, and MEDLINE (Ovid) from inception to 30 August 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing IR CBZ to CR CBZ in patients commencing monotherapy and patients presently treated with IR CBZ but experiencing unacceptable adverse events.Primary outcome measures included measures of seizure frequency, incidence of adverse events, proportion of patients with treatment failure and quality of life measures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted the data and recorded relevant information on a standardised data extraction form. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess the methodological quality of included studies.The heterogeneity of the included trials with respect to the reporting of outcomes resulted in only a narrative, descriptive analysis being possible for both the categorical and time-to-event data.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten trials (296 participants) fulfilled the criteria for inclusion in this review. Only one study had a low risk of bias. Two studies had a high risk of bias and the rest of the studies were rated as unclear risk of bias. One trial included patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy and nine included patients on treatment with IR CBZ.Eight trials reported heterogeneous measures of seizure frequency with conflicting results. A statistically significant difference was observed in only one trial, with patients prescribed CR CBZ experiencing fewer seizures than patients prescribed IR CBZ.Nine trials reported measures of adverse events. There was a trend in favour of CR CBZ with four trials reporting a statistically significant reduction in adverse events compared to IR CBZ. A further two trials reported fewer adverse events with CR CBZ but the reduction was not statistically significant. One trial found no difference in adverse events, and another trial reported more adverse events in the CR CBZ group than the IR CBZ group, although the increase was not statistically significant.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For this update no new eligible studies were identified and the conclusions drawn from the initial review remain unchanged.At present, data from trials do not confirm or refute an advantage for CR CBZ over IR CBZ for seizure frequency or adverse events in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy.For trials involving epilepsy patients already prescribed IR CBZ, no conclusions can be drawn concerning the superiority of CR CBZ with respect to seizure frequency.There is a trend for CR CBZ to be associated with fewer adverse events when compared to IR CBZ. A change to CR CBZ may therefore be a worthwhile strategy in patients with acceptable seizure control on IR CBZ but experiencing unacceptable adverse events. The included trials were of small size and of poor methodological quality limiting the validity of this conclusion.Randomised controlled trials comparing CR CBZ to IR CBZ and using clinically relevant outcomes are required to inform the choice of CBZ preparation for patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy.

Immediate-release versus controlled-release carbamazepine in the treatment of epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is defined as the tendency to spontaneous, excessive neuronal discharge manifesting as seizures. It is a common disorder with an incidence of 50 per 100,000 per year and a prevalence of 0.5% to 1% in the developed world (Hauser 1993).Carbamazepine (CBZ) is a widely used antiepileptic drug that is associated with a number of troublesome adverse events including dizziness, double vision and unsteadiness. These often occur during peaks in drug plasma concentration. The occurrence of such adverse events may limit the daily dose that can be tolerated and reduce the chances of seizure control for patients requiring higher doses (Vojvodic 2002). A controlled-release formulation of carbamazepine delivers the same dose over a longer period of time when compared to a standard formulation, thereby reducing post-dose peaks and potentially reducing adverse events associated with peak plasma levels.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of immediate-release CBZ (IR CBZ) versus controlled-release CBZ (CR CBZ) in patients diagnosed with epilepsy.The following review questions were investigated.(1) For newly diagnosed patients commencing CBZ, how do IR and CR formulations compare for efficacy and tolerability?(2) For patients on established treatment with IR CBZ but experiencing unacceptable adverse events, what is the effect on seizure control and the tolerability of a switch to a CR formulation versus remaining on the IR formulation?

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (10 November 2014), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO) 11 November 2014, and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 11 November 2014).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing IR CBZ to CR CBZ in patients commencing monotherapy and patients presently treated with IR CBZ but experiencing unacceptable adverse events.Primary outcome measures include seizure frequency, incidence of adverse events, proportion of patients with treatment failure and quality of life measures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The methodological quality of each study was assessed with respect to study design, type of control, method and concealment of allocation, blinding and completeness of follow up, and the presence of blinding for assessment of non-fatal outcomes. We did not make use of an overall quality score.Two review authors (GP, MS) independently extracted the data and recorded relevant information on a standardised data extraction form. The trials were assessed for inclusion.The heterogeneity of the included trials resulted in only a narrative, descriptive analysis being possible for both the categorical and time-to-event data.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten trials fulfilled the criteria for inclusion in this review. One trial included patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy and nine included patients on treatment with IR CBZ.Eight trials reported heterogeneous measures of seizure frequency with conflicting results. A statistically significant difference was observed in only one trial, with patients prescribed CR CBZ experiencing fewer seizures than patients prescribed IR CBZ.Nine trials reported measures of adverse events. There was a trend in favour of CR CBZ with four trials reporting a statistically significant reduction in adverse events compared to IR CBZ. A further two trials reported fewer adverse events with CR CBZ but the reduction was not statistically significant. One trial found no difference, with a further trial reporting increased adverse events in the CR CBZ group although the increase was not statistically significant.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At present, data from trials do not confirm or refute an advantage for CR CBZ over IR CBZ for seizure frequency or adverse events in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy.For trials involving epilepsy patients already prescribed IR CBZ, no conclusions can be drawn concerning the superiority of CR CBZ with respect to seizure frequency.There is a trend for CR CBZ to be associated with fewer adverse events when compared to IR CBZ. A change to CR CBZ may therefore be a worthwhile strategy in patients with acceptable seizure control on IR CBZ but experiencing unacceptable adverse events. The included trials were of small size, had poor methodological quality and possessed a high risk of bias, limiting the validity of this conclusion.Randomised controlled trials comparing CR CBZ to IR CBZ and using clinically relevant outcomes are required to inform the choice of CBZ preparation for patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy.

Immediate-release versus controlled-release carbamazepine in the treatment of epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is defined as the tendency to spontaneous, excessive neuronal discharge manifesting as seizures. It is a common disorder with an incidence of 50 per 100,000 per year and a prevalence of 0.5% to 1% (Hauser 1993) in the developed world.Carbamazepine (CBZ) is a widely used antiepileptic drug that is associated with a number of troublesome adverse events including dizziness, double vision and unsteadiness. These often occur during peaks in plasma concentration. The occurrence of such adverse events may limit the daily dose that can be tolerated and reduce the chances of seizure control for patients requiring higher doses (Vojvodic 2002). A controlled-release formulation of carbamazepine delivers the same dose over a longer period of time when compared to a standard formulation, thereby reducing post-dose peaks and potentially reducing adverse events associated with peak plasma levels.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of immediate-release CBZ (IR CBZ) versus controlled-release CBZ (CR CBZ) in patients diagnosed with epilepsy. The following hypotheses were tested.(1) For newly diagnosed patients commencing CBZ, how do immediate-release and controlled-release formulations compare for efficacy and tolerability?(2) For patients on established treatment with immediate-release CBZ but experiencing unacceptable adverse events, what is the effect on seizure control and tolerability of a switch to a controlled-release formulation versus remaining on the immediate-release formulation?

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register (5 September 2013), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 8, 2013) in The Cochrane Library and MEDLINE (1946 to 5 September 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing IR CBZ to CR CBZ in patients commencing monotherapy and patients presently treated with IR CBZ but experiencing unacceptable adverse events.Primary outcome measures include seizure frequency, incidence of adverse events, proportion with treatment failure and quality of life measures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The methodological quality of each study was assessed with respect to study design, type of control, method and the concealment of allocation, blinding and completeness of follow up, and the presence of blinding for assessment of non-fatal outcomes. We did not make use of an overall quality score.Two review authors (GP, MS) independently extracted the data and recorded relevant information on a standardised data extraction form. Results were assessed for inclusion.The heterogeneity of the included trials resulted in only a narrative, descriptive analysis being possible for both the categorical and time-to-event data.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten trials fulfilled the criteria for inclusion in this review. One trial included patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy and nine included patients on treatment with IR CBZ.Eight trials reported heterogeneous measures of seizure frequency with conflicting results. A statistically significant difference was observed in only one trial, with patients prescribed CR CBZ experiencing fewer seizures than patients prescribed IR CBZ.Nine trials reported measures of adverse events. There was a trend in favour of CR CBZ with four trials reporting a statistically significant reduction in adverse events compared to IR CBZ. A further two trials reported fewer adverse events with CR CBZ but the reduction was not statistically significant. One trial found no difference, with a further trial reporting increased adverse events in the CR CBZ group although not statistically significant.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At present, data from trials do not confirm or refute an advantage for CR CBZ over IR CBZ for seizure frequency or adverse events in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy.For trials involving epilepsy patients already prescribed IR CBZ, no conclusions can be drawn concerning the superiority of CR CBZ with respect to seizure frequency.There is a trend for CR CBZ to be associated with fewer adverse events when compared to IR CBZ. A change to CR CBZ may therefore be a worthwhile strategy in patients with acceptable seizure control on IR CBZ but experiencing unacceptable adverse events. The included trials were of small size, poor methodological quality and possessed a high risk of bias, limiting the validity of this conclusion.Randomised controlled trials comparing CR CBZ to IR CBZ and using clinically relevant outcomes are required to inform the choice of CBZ preparation for patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy.

Potential therapeutic approaches for modulating expression and accumulation of defective lamin A in laminopathies and age-related diseases

Scientific understanding of the genetic components of aging has increased in recent years, with several genes being identified as playing roles in the aging process and, potentially, longevity. In particular, genes encoding components of the nuclear lamina in eukaryotes have been increasingly well characterized, owing in part to their clinical significance in age-related diseases. This review focuses on one such gene, which encodes lamin A, a key component of the nuclear lamina. Genetic variation in this gene can give rise to lethal, early-onset diseases known as laminopathies. Here, we analyze the literature and conduct computational analyses of lamin A signaling and intracellular interactions in order to examine potential mechanisms for altering or slowing down aberrant Lamin A expression and/or for restoring the ratio of normal to aberrant lamin A. The ultimate goal of such studies is to ameliorate or combat laminopathies and related diseases of aging, and we provide a discussion of current approaches in this review.

Utility of physiologically based absorption modeling in implementing Quality by Design in drug development

To implement Quality by Design (QbD) in drug development, scientists need tools that link drug products properties to in vivo performance. Physiologically based absorption models are potentially useful tools; yet, their utility of QbD implementation has not been discussed or explored much in the literature. We simulated pharmacokinetics (PK) of carbamazepine (CBZ) after administration of four oral formulations, immediate-release (IR) suspension, IR tablet, extended-release (XR) tablet and capsule, under fasted and fed conditions and presented a general diagram of a modeling and simulation strategy integrated with pharmaceutical development. We obtained PK parameters and absorption scale factors (ASFs) by deconvolution of the PK data for IR suspension under fasted condition. The model was validated for other PK profiles of IR formulations and used to predict PK for XR formulations. We explored three key areas where a modeling and simulation approach impacts QbD. First, the model was used to help identify optimal in vitro dissolution conditions for XR formulations. Second, identification of critical formulations variables was illustrated by a parameter sensitivity analysis of mean particle radius for the IR tablet that showed a PK shift with decreased particle radius, C (max) was increased and T (max) was decreased. Finally, virtual trial simulations allowed incorporation of inter-subject variability in the model. Virtual bioequivalence studies performed for two test formulations suggested that an in vitro dissolution test may be a more sensitive discriminative method than in vivo PK studies. In summary, a well-validated predictive model is a potentially useful tool for QbD implementation in drug development.

Immediate-release versus controlled-release carbamazepine in the treatment of epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is defined as the tendency to spontaneous, excessive neuronal discharge, manifesting as seizures. It is a common disorder with an incidence of 50 per 100,000 per year and a prevalence of 0.5% to 1% (Hauser 1993) in the developed world.Carbamazepine is a commonly used antiepileptic drug that is associated with a number of troublesome adverse events including dizziness, double vision and unsteadiness. These often occur during peaks in plasma concentration. The occurrence of such adverse events may limit the daily dose that can be tolerated and reduce the chances of seizure control for patients requiring higher doses (Vojvodic 2002). A controlled-release formulation of carbamazepine delivers the same dose over a longer period of time when compared to a standard formulation, thereby reducing post-dose peaks and potentially reducing adverse events associated with peak plasma levels.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of immediate-release carbamazepine (IR CBZ) versus controlled-release carbamazepine (CR CBZ) in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy.To determine the efficacy of switching to CR CBZ in patients treated with IR CBZ but experiencing unacceptable adverse events.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register (25 September 2009), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 4), and MEDLINE (1950 to September week 3, 2009).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing IR CBZ to CR CBZ in patients commencing monotherapy and patients presently treated with IR CBZ but experiencing unacceptable adverse events.Primary outcome measures include seizure frequency, incidence of adverse events, proportions with treatment failure and quality of life measures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The methodological quality of each study was assessed with respect to study design, type of control, method and concealment of allocation, blinding and completeness of follow up, and the presence of blinding for assessment of non-fatal outcomes. We did not make use of an overall quality score.Two review authors (GP, MS) independently extracted the data and recorded relevant information on a standardised data extraction form. Results were assessed for inclusion.The heterogeneity of the included trials resulted in only a narrative, descriptive analysis being possible for both categorical and time-to-event data.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten trials fulfilled the criteria for inclusion in this review. One trial included patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy and nine included patients on treatment with IR CBZ.Eight trials reported heterogeneous measures of seizure frequency with conflicting results. A statistically significant difference was observed in only one trial, with patients prescribed CR CBZ experiencing fewer seizures than patients prescribed IR CBZ.Nine trials reported measures of adverse events. There was a trend in favour of CR CBZ with four trials reporting a statistically significant reduction in adverse events compared to IR CBZ. A further two trials reported fewer adverse events with CR CBZ, not statistically significant. One trial found no difference, with a further trial reporting increased adverse events in the CR CBZ although not statistically significant.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At present, data from trials do not confirm or refute an advantage for CR CBZ over IR CBZ for seizure frequency or adverse events in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy.For trials involving epilepsy patients already prescribed IR CBZ, no conclusions can be drawn concerning superiority of CR CBZ with respect to seizure frequency.There is a trend for CR CBZ to be associated with fewer adverse events when compared to IR CBZ. A change to CR CBZ may therefore be a worthwhile strategy in patients with acceptable seizure control on IR CBZ but experiencing unacceptable adverse events. The included trials were of small size, poor methodological quality and possessed a high risk of bias, limiting the validity of this conclusion.Randomised controlled trials comparing CR CBZ to IR CBZ and using clinically relevant outcomes are required to inform the choice of CBZ preparation for patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy.

Influence of Polymorphic Form, Morphology, and Excipient Interactions on the Dissolution of Carbamazepine Compacts

To gain a deeper understanding of the behavior of carbamazepine (CBZ) and CBZ dihydrate (DH) compacts during in vitro dissolution tests various factors were investigated: hydrate formation of CBZ, crystal morphology, surface area, and excipient influence. Dissolution tests were performed in three different dissolution media: distilled water, hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC), and polyethylene glycol (PEG) solutions. For the CBZ compacts, the dissolution rate of CBZ in water was fastest (0.338 mg L(-1) min(-1)). With increasing ability of the excipients to inhibit the hydration of CBZ (PEG < HPMC), surprisingly the dissolution rate of CBZ compacts decreased: PEG solution (0.314 mg L(-1) min(-1)) > HPMC solution (0.257 mg L(-1) min(-1)). This implies that DH formation resulted in an apparent increase in the dissolution rate rather than slowing it down. For the DH compacts, the dissolution rate in water (0.055 mg L(-1) min(-1)) was slower than that of PEG and HPMC solutions (0.174 and 0.178 mg L(-1) min(-1), respectively). The contact angle measurements showed a significantly higher value in water (61.0 degrees) than in PEG and HPMC solutions (44.8 degrees and 43.1 degrees, respectively). Although the dissolution of CBZ and DH compacts in various dissolution media are complex processes, the influence and relative importance of these factors were clearly detected providing better understanding of the dissolution behavior of the drug.

Dissolution and relative bioavailability of two carbamazepine preparations for children with epilepsy

The in-vitro dissolution profiles of two carbamazepine formulations (Tegretol and a generic carbamazepine) have been assessed and the bioavailability of carbamazepine compared in 12 epileptic children at steady-state. Dissolution from the generic formulation (100 and 200 mg tablets) tended to be greater than for the proprietary tablets. However, the bioavailability and pharmacokinetics of carbamazepine when assessed at steady-state were similar for the two formulations. It appears, therefore, that the breakthrough seizures and higher incidence of neurological side-effects observed when children were given generic carbamazepine in place of the proprietary formulation cannot be accounted for by differences in bioavailability or pharmacokinetics.

Absolute bioavailability of carbamazepine after oral administration of a 2% syrup

Two healthy male volunteers received 10 mg carbamazepine (CBZ) as a 2-h constant-rate intravenous (i.v.) infusion and 100 mg 15N-labeled CBZ as a 2% oral suspension, concomitantly. The two compounds have identical pharmacokinetics. Their respective concentrations in plasma were determined by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) for 168 h. The comparison of the areas under the plasma curves (AUC) obtained by the two routes of administration, showed the systemic availability of CBZ given as an oral suspension to be equal to its availability when given intravenously. A two-compartment model was estimated: The apparent volume of distribution of CBZ at the steady-state (Vss) was approximately 1 L/kg.

Controlled release carbamazepine: cognitive side effects in patients with epilepsy

The treatment of epilepsy with carbamazepine (CBZ) may be hampered by cognitive side effects. These side effects are thought to be related to pharmacokinetic properties of the drug. The serum concentration of CBZ is characterized by rapid absorption and a short half-life, which may lead to a considerable fluctuation of the level between doses. Cognitive defects may result from peak levels: short periods with high serum concentration. In a single-blind crossover design, cognitive performance was compared in three conditions. All patients were first tested in the steady state of conventional CBZ. The patients were then assigned randomly to either CBZ-controlled release (CR) or a condition in which conventional CBZ was administered in the same tablet form and dose frequency as CR. Psychological tests were administered four times daily, immediately after the serum samples were taken. A nonmedication control group was tested following the same test scheme to obtain standards for the evaluation of changes in performance during the day. A systematic tendency was found toward higher test performance in the CR condition. This is especially evident for tests of memory and accuracy of visual information processing. The results of the repeated test procedure show that the smoothing effect of the CR condition on serum concentration fluctuations results in a more stable pattern of cognitive functioning during the day.

Fluctuations in salivary carbamazepine and carbamazepine-10,11-epoxide concentrations during the day in epileptic children

Hourly salivary concentrations of carbamazepine (CBZ) and carbamazepine-10,11-epoxide (EP) were studied during 2 consecutive days in a group of epileptic children receiving twice daily CBZ monotherapy either as the tablet or syrup formulation. Relatively large fluctuations were observed for both CBZ (mean, 57%; range, 32-100%) and EP (mean, 97%; range, 19-189%) during a dosage interval. However, concentrations of EP were generally much lower, approximately 34% of corresponding CBZ levels, and in absolute terms the concentration-time curves for EP appeared much less variable. Further evidence supporting extensive CBZ concentration fluctuations during the day was provided by an additional group of 30 epileptic children receiving CBZ monotherapy whose time of dosage was manipulated to achieve peak and trough concentrations during assessment with a psychomotor test battery. Changes in salivary CBZ concentrations within subjects ranged from 4 to 272% (median, 65%), excluding two atypical cases who showed greater than 10-fold increases in the expected high concentration. These results suggest that in children there is a substantial risk of error in the interpretation of CBZ concentrations from a single sample without consideration of the time of last dose. The implications of these findings for clinical treatment with regard to the appearance of side effects and changes in psychomotor function are discussed.