ArticleJournal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics2011
Predictability of individualized dosage regimens of carbamazepine and valproate mono- and combination therapy.
Article in Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Critique of Pharmacokinetic Calculators for Drug Dosing Individualization.European journal of drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics · 2020Pooled it
- Population pharmacokinetics of vancomycin in adult Chinese patients with post-craniotomy meningitis and its application in individualised dosage regimens.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2016Trial
- Assessment of adherence to carbamazepine using plasma and saliva samples, a study from Jordan.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Population pharmacokinetics of oxcarbazepine active metabolite in Chinese paediatric epilepsy patients and its application in individualised dosage regimens.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2019Article
- Pharmacokinetic interactions and dosing rationale for antiepileptic drugs in adults and children.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
WHAT IS KNOWN AND
objectiveMany investigators agree that appropriate rational utilization of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) with Bayesian feedback dosage adjustment facilitates epilepsy treatment with carbamazepine (CBZ) and/or valproate (VPA) by increasing the seizure control and safety, as well as by reducing treatment costs. In previous works we have developed and used in clinical practice population pharmacokinetic (PK) models of different dosage forms for VPA and post-induction CBZ behaviour, as well as for combined therapy with CBZ plus another 'old' antiepileptic drug (AED). An important step of external validation is to evaluate how well a procedure of Bayesian individualizing AED dosage regimens based on a proposed population PK model and sparse TDM data 'works', and how helpful it is in real practical clinical settings. The aim of this study was to evaluate the predictability of individualized dosage regimens for monotherapy with CBZ in the post-induction period or with VPA, as well as for CBZ and VPA given as combination therapy based on TDM data of epileptic patients and the earlier developed population models.
methodsFour groups of TDM data were analysed using the USC*PACK software for PK/PD analysis: 556 predictions for adult epileptic patients on CBZ monotherapy, 662 predictions for VPA monotherapy, 402 predictions of CBZ serum levels and 430 predictions of VPA serum levels for adult epileptic patients on CBZ+VPA combination therapy. Statistical characteristics of the prediction errors (PE) and weighted PE were used to estimate bias and precision of predictions. Intraindividual and interoccasional variability of predictions were also estimated. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: This study demonstrated that in most cases of CBZ and VPA monotherapy and combination therapy, predictions of future AED concentrations based on the earlier developed population PK models, TDM data and patient-specific maximum a posteriori probability Bayesian posterior parameter values provided clinically acceptable estimates. Statistical analysis of the residuals demonstrated that the distributions of residual and weighted residual were close to the normal distribution (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, P > 0·05) and their mean values did not differ statistically significant from zero (no statistically significant bias, P > 0·05) for all groups of predictions. The observed decreased quality of predictions of VPA concentrations during VPA+CBZ combination therapy, especially when CBZ dosages were changed, might well be explained by their PK interactions. For all groups, in linear regression analysis, the observed trend of decreasing of the prediction quality over various future prediction time horizons was considered statistically significant (P < 0·05). Prediction of serum levels further in future was less precise than those closer to the present for a 1·5- to 3·5-year observation period. No bias in predictions was associated with the time horizons. WHAT IS NEW AND
conclusionOur validation results suggest good predictive performance of the population models developed earlier, and quite acceptable predictions of future AED serum levels for individualized dosage regimens of CBZ and VPA therapy in real clinical settings.
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.