Comparative Absorption Profiles of Divalproex Sodium Delayed-Release Versus Extended-Release Tablets—Clinical Implications

Efficacy, Safety, and Retention Rate of Extended-Release Divalproex Versus Conventional Delayed-Release Divalproex: A Meta-Analysis of Controlled Clinical Trials

Purpose: A novel once-daily divalproex-extended release (ER) dose formulation has been developed; this formulation prolongs the therapeutic serum levels of the drug, compared with the twice-daily conventional divalproex-delayed release (DR) formulation. This study aimed to systematically examine and compare the efficacy, safety, and retention rates of the ER divalproex (VPA-ER) and conventional DR divalproex (VPA-DR) formulations.

Methods: Randomized control trials (RCTs) reporting the efficacy, adverse events (AEs), and medication compliance of ER and DR divalproex were searched in online databases, including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases, by searching MeSH words and term words. Observational studies with potential biases were excluded. The meta-analysis was performed using Stata 16.0 software.

Findings: Thirteen RCTs, involving 1,028 participants, were included in this meta-analysis. Efficacy, AEs, and drug retention rates were the main study outcomes. According to our study, VPA-ER presented clinically significant benefits compared with the placebo in the population with bipolar disorder (BD) (39.5% versus 27.2%, p < 0.001). A similar efficacy of VPA-ER and VPA-DR in controlling seizures was observed in epilepsy patients (87.4% versus 86.5%, p = 0.769). A significantly lower incidence of AEs was reported in the VPA-ER group than in the placebo group (26.8% versus 34.8%, p = 0.003). By contrast, there was no evidence of difference in safety between VPA-ER and VPA-DR (29.4% versus 30.5%, p = 0.750). In addition, the drug retention rate was significantly lower in the VPA-ER group than in the placebo group (76.0% versus 82.7%, p = 0.020), especially in migraine patients (p = 0.022) and in patients who were treated for fewer than 4 weeks (p = 0.018).

Implications: The efficacy of VPA-ER was significantly superior to that of the placebo treatment, which provided efficacy similar to that of conventional VPA-DR. VPA-ER is well tolerated with a low rate of AEs compared to the placebo. In addition, the acceptable medicine compliance of VPA-ER was conducive to the long-term maintenance treatment of chronic diseases. Although we analyzed open labels and crossover design RCTs, large-scale multicenter studies on the efficacy and medicine compliance of new ER formulations with less AEs are required to validate our conclusion.

Remedial dosing recommendations for delayed or missed doses of valproic acid in patients with epilepsy based on Monte Carlo simulations

OBJECTIVE

Delayed or missed doses are unavoidable in the pharmacotherapy of epilepsy and significantly compromise the efficacy of antiepileptic drug treatment. An inappropriate remedial regimen can cause seizure relapse or serious adverse events. This study investigated the effect of delayed or missed doses on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of valproic acid (VPA) in patients with epilepsy and established remedial dosing recommendations for nonadherent patients.

METHODS

Monte Carlo simulations are based on all previous population pharmacokinetic models for pediatric, adult and elderly patients with epilepsy. The following four remedial strategies were investigated for each delayed dose: A) A partial dose or a regular dose is taken immediately; a regular dose is taken at the next scheduled time. B) The delayed dose was administered immediately, followed by a partial dose at the next scheduled time. C) The delayed dose and a partial dose are taken; the next scheduled time is skipped, and the regular regimen is resumed. D) Double doses are taken when missed one dose or two doses, and the regular regimen at the subsequent scheduled time is resumed.

RESULTS

The recommended remedial dose was related to the delay duration and daily dose. Remedial dosing strategies A and B were almost equivalent, whereas Strategy C was recommended when the delayed dose was close to the next scheduled dose. Strategy D was only suggested for delayed two doses.

CONCLUSION

Simulations provide quantitative insight into the remedial regimens for nonadherent patients, and clinicians should select the optimal regimen for each patient based on the individual's status.

Pharmacokinetic Variability of Drugs Used for Prophylactic Treatment of Migraine

In this review, we evaluate the variability in the pharmacokinetics of 11 drugs with established prophylactic effects in migraine to facilitate 'personalized medicine' with these drugs. PubMed was searched for 'single-dose' and 'steady-state' pharmacokinetic studies of these 11 drugs. The maximum plasma concentration was reported in 248 single-dose and 115 steady-state pharmacokinetic studies, and the area under the plasma concentration-time curve was reported in 299 single-dose studies and 112 steady-state pharmacokinetic studies. For each study, the coefficient of variation was calculated for maximum plasma concentration and area under the plasma concentration-time curve, and we divided the drug variability into two categories; high variability, coefficient of variation >40%, or low or moderate variability, coefficient of variation <40%. Based on the area under the plasma concentration-time curve in steady-state studies, the following drugs have high pharmacokinetic variability: propranolol in 92% (33/36), metoprolol in 85% (33/39), and amitriptyline in 60% (3/5) of studies. The following drugs have low or moderate variability: atenolol in 100% (2/2), valproate in 100% (15/15), topiramate in 88% (7/8), and naproxen and candesartan in 100% (2/2) of studies. For drugs with low or moderate pharmacokinetic variability, treatment can start without initial titration of doses, whereas titration is used to possibly enhance tolerability of topiramate and amitriptyline. The very high pharmacokinetic variability of metoprolol and propranolol can result in very high plasma concentrations in a small minority of patients, and those drugs should therefore be titrated up from a low initial dose, depending mainly on the occurrence of adverse events.

Adverse Drug Reactions in the Intensive Care Unit

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are undesirable effects of medications used in normal doses [1]. ADRs can occur during treatment in an intensive care unit (ICU) or result in ICU admissions. A meta-analysis of 4139 studies suggests the incidence of ADRs among hospitalized patients is 17% [2]. Because of underreporting and misdiagnosis, the incidence of ADRs may be much higher and has been reported to be as high as 36% [3]. Critically ill patients are at especially high risk because of medical complexity, numerous high-alert medications, complex and often challenging drug dosing and medication regimens, and opportunity for error related to the distractions of the ICU environment [4]. Table 1 summarizes the ADRs included in this chapter.

Current oral and non-oral routes of antiepileptic drug delivery

Antiepileptic drugs are commonly given orally for chronic treatment of epilepsy. The treatment of epilepsy requires administration of medications for both acute and chronic treatment using multiple types of formulations. Parenteral routes are used when the oral route is unavailable or a rapid clinical response is required. Lorazepam and midazolam can be administered by the buccal, sublingual or intranasal routes. Consensus documents recommend rectal diazepam, buccal midazolam or intranasal midazolam for the out-of-hospital treatment of early status epilepticus. In the United States, diazepam is the only FDA approved rectal formulation. With the lack of parenteral, buccal or intranasal formulations for many of the antiepileptic drugs, the use of the rectal route of delivery to treat acute seizures or to maintain therapeutic concentrations is suitable for many, but not all antiepileptic medications. There is a significant need for new non-oral formulations of the antiepileptic drugs when oral administration is not possible.

Intermittent drug dosing intervals guided by the operational multiple dosing half lives for predictable plasma accumulation and fluctuation

Intermittent drug dosing intervals are usually initially guided by the terminal pharmacokinetic half life and are dependent on drug formulation. For chronic multiple dosing and for extended release dosage forms, the terminal half life often does not predict the plasma drug accumulation or fluctuation observed. We define and advance applications for the operational multiple dosing half lives for drug accumulation and fluctuation after multiple oral dosing at steady-state. Using Monte Carlo simulation, our results predict a way to maximize the operational multiple dosing half lives relative to the terminal half life by using a first-order absorption rate constant close to the terminal elimination rate constant in the design of extended release dosage forms. In this way, drugs that may be eliminated early in the development pipeline due to a relatively short half life can be formulated to be dosed at intervals three times the terminal half life, maximizing compliance, while maintaining tight plasma concentration accumulation and fluctuation ranges. We also present situations in which the operational multiple dosing half lives will be especially relevant in the determination of dosing intervals, including for drugs that follow a direct PKPD model and have a narrow therapeutic index, as the rate of concentration decrease after chronic multiple dosing (that is not the terminal half life) can be determined via simulation. These principles are illustrated with case studies on valproic acid, diazepam, and anti-hypertensives.

Once-daily dosing is appropriate for extended-release divalproex over a wide dose range, but not for enteric-coated, delayed-release divalproex: evidence via computer simulations and implications for epilepsy therapy

Divalproex sodium extended-release (divalproex-ER), administered once-daily, maintains plasma valproic acid (VPA) concentrations for 24h, whereas enteric-coated, delayed-release divalproex sodium (divalproex) requires multiple-daily doses to do the same. We hypothesize that a once-daily divalproex regimen should not be administered to epilepsy patients requiring high total daily doses, e.g., 35.6-56 mg/kg/day, due to the potential for high (>125 mg/L) maximum VPA concentrations (C(max)). We examined the impact of once-daily dosing, divalproex vs. divalproex-ER, on steady-state plasma VPA concentration-time profiles at commonly used doses in monotherapy (uninduced) and polytherapy (hepatic enzyme-induced) virtual adult patients. Only the 1125 mg once-daily divalproex dose had mean C(max)<100mg/L; >or=2000 mg produced mean C(max)>or=125 mg/L. Mean divalproex C(min) was approximately 50 mg/L at two of four doses tested, whereas mean ER C(min) was >73 mg/L at all doses tested. Once-daily divalproex peak-trough fluctuation was 4.4-6.2-fold greater than once-daily divalproex-ER. We predict that excursions beyond the conventional recommended VPA plasma concentration range will commonly occur with high total mg daily doses (>or=2000 mg) of enteric-coated divalproex, if dosed once-daily, potentially producing clinical toxicity. This divalproex formulation should not be dosed once-daily at high total mg daily doses due to this risk. Divalproex-ER is the appropriate formulation for administration on a once-daily basis, especially if large total mg/day doses are required for the control of seizure activity.

Distinct absorption characteristics of oral formulations of valproic acid/divalproex available in the United States

Five oral formulations of valproic acid (VPA)/divalproex sodium are approved and commonly used in the US for treatment of epilepsy, mania/bipolar disorder and migraine prophylaxis. These formulations have unique pharmacokinetic and formulation characteristics and are designed to treat distinct patient populations. We compared the absorption characteristics of all five oral VPA/divalproex formulations currently available in the US. Plasma VPA concentration-time profiles, following single oral dose (250mg) administration of five VPA/divalproex formulations under fasting conditions, from three pharmacokinetic studies in healthy subjects (N=9-15 each) were compared. The five VPA/divalproex formulations demonstrated marked absorption differences. The rate of absorption, as characterized by maximum concentration (C(max)) and time to C(max) (T(max)), may be rank-ordered as: VPA syrup (34.2mg/L, 0.9h)>VPA capsule (31.4mg/L, 2.2h)>divalproex sodium sprinkle capsule (20.7mg/L, 4.0h; lag-time congruent with1h) congruent withdivalproex sodium enteric-coated delayed-release tablet (26.0mg/L, 3.4h; lag-time congruent with2h)>divalproex sodium extended-release (divalproex-ER) tablet (11.8mg/L, 19.7h). Divalproex-ER had approximately 11% lower exposure (AUC). The comparable AUC across the five formulations, when corrected for bioavailability differences, demonstrates that formulation primarily affects the drug-release and in vivo absorption of VPA. Only divalproex-ER demonstrated true sustained-release characteristics.

Progress report on new antiepileptic drugs: a summary of the Eigth Eilat Conference (EILAT VIII)

The Eigth Eilat Conference on New Antiepileptic Drugs (AEDs)-EILAT VII, took place in Sitges, Barcelona from the 10th to 14th September, 2006. Basic scientists, clinical pharmacologists and neurologists from 24 countries attended the conference, whose main themes included a focus on status epilepticus (epidemiology, current and future treatments), evidence-based treatment guidelines and the potential of neurostimulation in refractory epilepsy. Consistent with previous formats of this conference, the central part of the conference was devoted to a review of AEDs in development, as well as updates on marketed AEDs introduced since 1989. This article summarizes the information presented on drugs in development, including brivaracetam, eslicarbazepine acetate (BIA-2-093), fluorofelbamate, ganaxolone, huperzine, lacosamide, retigabine, rufinamide, seletracetam, stiripentol, talampanel, valrocemide, JZP-4, NS1209, PID and RWJ-333369. Updates on felbamate, gabapentin, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine and new extended release oxcarbazepine formulations, pregabalin, tiagabine, topiramate, vigabatrin, zonisamide and new extended release valproic acid formulations, and the antiepileptic vagal stimulator device are also presented.