4.4 Article

Therapeutic levetiracetam monitoring during pregnancy: mind the gap

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/2040622319851652

关键词

antiepileptic drugs (AEDs); levetiracetam; pharmacokinetics; pregnancy; therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Epilepsy is one of the most common chronic neurological conditions and its treatment during pregnancy is challenging. Levetiracetam (LEV) is an antiepileptic medication frequently used during pregnancy. Only a few small studies have been published on LEV monitoring during pregnancy, demonstrating decreased serum LEV levels during the first and second trimester; however, the most significant decrease was observed during the third trimester of pregnancy. In this study we aimed to evaluate LEV pharmacokinetics during different stages of pregnancy. Methods: We followed up and monitored serum levels of pregnant women treated with LEV for epilepsy. Results: Fifty-nine women with 66 pregnancies during the study period were included. The lowest raw LEV serum concentrations were observed during the first trimester. Compared with the pre-pregnancy period, raw serum concentration was lower by 5.76 mg/L [95% confidence interval (CI) (2.78, 8.75), p = 0.039] during the first trimester. Comparing the decrease in the first trimester with either the second or the third, no significant changes were observed (p = 0.945, p = 0.866). Compared with pre-pregnancy measurements, apparent clearance was increased by 71.08 L/day [95%CI (16.34, 125.83), p = 0.011] during the first trimester. About 30% of LEV serum levels during pregnancy were below the laboratory quoted reference range. Conclusions: Raw LEV serum levels tend to decrease during pregnancy, mainly during the first trimester contrary to previous reports. Monitoring of LEV serum levels is essential upon planning pregnancy and thereafter if pre-pregnancy LEV levels are to be maintained. However, more studies are needed to assess the correlation with clinical outcome.

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

4.4
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