4.1 Article

Population Pharmacokinetics of Unbound and Total Drug Concentrations Following Intravenously Administered Carbamazepine in Elderly and Younger Adult Patients With Epilepsy

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
卷 53, 期 3, 页码 276-284

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jcph.8

关键词

adults and elderly; carbamazepine; epilepsy; nonlinear mixed effects modeling; population pharmacokinetics; stable-labeled intravenous dosing

资金

  1. National Institute of Health [NINDS P50-NS16308, M01-RR00400, M01-RR00039, M01 RR16587]
  2. Government of Egypt [GM842, NS050309]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of the study was to investigate the pharmacokinetics (PK) of unbound and total plasma carbamazepine (CBZ) concentrations following simultaneous administration of intravenous and oral formulations. We tested the hypothesis that age-related alterations in physiology and patient characteristics influence CBZ disposition and protein binding. Patients (n = 113) on maintenance therapy received a 100 mg dose of a novel, intravenous, stable-labeled (SL) CBZ formulation as partial replacement of their morning CBZ dose. A two-compartment model described unbound and total SL-CBZ data. The stable-labeled intravenous dosing methodology enabled the estimation of the CBZ clearance (CL) and volumes of distribution. The CL of CBZ was dependent on race through the model equation unbound CL (L/hour) = 11.2 x (1.30)(Race); where Race = 1 for Caucasian, 0 for African American. Total body weight explained 57% and 70% of the interindividual variability in the central and peripheral volumes of distribution, respectively. Age, sex, smoking, plasma albumin, and alpha 1-acid glycoprotein concentrations had no effect on CL, binding or volumes of distribution. The model was evaluated via bootstrap and predictive check. Results may support race specific dosing for CBZ where an average African-American individual would receive 70% of the standard dose prescribed for the Caucasian person.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据