Trial reportBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2008
Exposure-response analysis reveals that clinically important toxicity difference can exist between bioequivalent carbamazepine tablets.
Trial report in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Metrics for Investigating Bioequivalence in Onset of Action in Incurred Bioequivalence Studies.Pharmaceutics · 2026Article
- A pharmacokinetic model of antiseizure medication load to guide care in the epilepsy monitoring unit.Epilepsia · 2023Article
- Novel method to estimate the appropriate dosing interval for activated charcoal to avoid interaction with other drugs.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2020Article
- Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling for predicting irinotecan exposure in human body.Oncotarget · 2017Article
- Clinical utility of eslicarbazepine: current evidence.Drug design, development and therapy · 2015Review
- A review of OROS methylphenidate (Concerta(®)) in the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.CNS drugs · 2014Review
- Article
- Metrics for the evaluation of bioequivalence of modified-release formulations.The AAPS journal · 2012Review
- Using partial area for evaluation of bioavailability and bioequivalence.Pharmaceutical research · 2011Review
- The pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic pipeline: translating anticancer drug pharmacology to the clinic.The AAPS journal · 2011Review
- Evaluation of bioequivalence for highly variable drugs with scaled average bioequivalence.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2009Review
- Looking back: editors' pick of 2008.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo assess whether, using the current regulatory criteria, therapeutically important differences can exist between bioequivalent carbamazepine (CBZ) tablets. A secondary goal was to demonstrate quantitatively the relationship between the risk of neurological adverse effects to orally ingested CBZ and the rate of absorption.
methodsResults of a bioequivalence study by Olling et al. (Biopharm Drug Dispos 1999; 20: 19-28) were reanalysed. Following an exploratory data analysis step, a mixed-effect pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) model was built to describe the dependence of adverse events on the CBZ concentration.
resultsRapid development of tolerance was demonstrated for most neurological adverse effects, with a characteristic half-life of 02.29 h and an initial EC50 of 2.33 mg l(-1). The resulting tolerance PK-PD model was characterized further using the tools and terminology of sensitivity analysis. It was demonstrated that the maximum concentration (C(max)) exhibits poor PK and PD sensitivities, and that clinically significant differences can exist between formulations which otherwise comply with the bioequivalence requirements. In contrast, another PK metric, the partial AUC, was a much better marker of the early neurological adverse events observable during the absorption phase of the drug.
conclusionsIn clinical and regulatory considerations, the development of acute tolerance for adverse effects of CBZ must be taken into account. Partial AUC reflects more sensitively the risk of adverse events than C(max). Instead of the current trend of tightening of the bioequivalence criteria for narrow therapeutic index drugs, the use of alternative, more sensitive PK metrics is proposed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.