4.1 Article

Population Pharmacokinetic Evaluation and Missed-Dose Simulations for Eslicarbazepine Acetate Monotherapy in Patients With Partial-Onset Seizures

Journal

CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY IN DRUG DEVELOPMENT
Volume 7, Issue 3, Pages 287-297

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cpdd.382

Keywords

eslicarbazepine; pharmacokinetics; missed dose; simulations; monotherapy

Funding

  1. UCB Pharma
  2. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
  3. National Institutes of Health
  4. Supernus Pharmaceuticals Inc.
  5. Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Given the potential consequences of antiepileptic therapy nonadherence, missed-dose scenarios of 12- to 48-hour dose delays (4-hour intervals) for eslicarbazepine acetate monotherapy were evaluated using simulated plasma concentrations of a population pharmacokinetic model (representing 493 subjects). When 1600-mg doses were delayed 12 to <16 or 36 to <44hours, simulations showed immediate administration of 1600 mg followed by the same dose at the scheduled time maintained plasma concentrations within the target concentration range. With 16- to 24- or 44- to 48-hour delays, administration of 2400 mg at the scheduled time followed by resumption of 1600 mg/day maintained plasma concentrations within the target concentration range. For exploratory purposes, the population pharmacokinetic model was refined to predict (n = 6 subjects) and also to allow for simulation of cerebrospinal fluid concentrations. Based on the plasma concentration simulations conducted herein, potential dosing recommendations were developed that suggest a missed ESL dose should be taken when remembered, and the usual dose regimen resumed. If it is remembered within 4 hours of the next dose, 1.5 times the usual dose should be taken immediately, the scheduled dose for that day should be skipped, and the usual regimen resumed the next day.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available