4.2 Article

Metabolic acidosis with topiramate and zonisamide: an assessment of its severity and predictors

期刊

PHARMACOGENETICS AND GENOMICS
卷 21, 期 5, 页码 297-302

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/FPC.0b013e3283441b95

关键词

acid-base balance; carbonic anhydrase; epilepsy; renal tubular acidosis; topiramate; zonisamide

资金

  1. Department of Health Chair in Pharmacogenetics
  2. Wolfson Foundation
  3. National Institute for Health Research [ACF-2006-07-001] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Carbonic anhydrase (CA) inhibitors topiramate and zonisamide can induce metabolic acidosis in some patients. Our aims were to assess the prevalence and severity of this acidosis and to determine its predictors. Methods For 70 patients established on treatment with topiramate (n = 55) or zonisamide (n = 14) or both (n = 1), we measured electrolytes, and genotyped single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the main renal CA isoenzymes (II, IV and XII). Results Twenty-six percent of patients had a metabolic acidosis (serum bicarbonate < 20 mmol/l). The mean serum bicarbonate of patients taking topiramate was significantly lower than those taking zonisamide (P = 0.002). We found no association between serum bicarbonate and the dose of drug or the duration of treatment. Serum bicarbonate levels were associated with the CA type XII SNPs rs2306719 (P = 0.006 by one-way analysis of variance) and rs4984241 (P = 0.015), but this association was not strong enough to survive correction for multiple testing. Conclusion The development of acidosis with topiramate and zonisamide is not determined by drug dose or by treatment duration, but may be influenced by polymorphisms in the gene for CA type XII. The aforementioned SNPs lie 9.8 kb apart in intron 1 of the CA type XII gene, and deserve further study in a larger cohort of patients. Pharmacogenetics and Genomics 21:297-302 (C) 2011 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

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

4.2
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