ArticleDrugs in R&D2011
Comparison of dissolution profiles and serum concentrations of two lamotrigine tablet formulations.
Article in Drugs in R&D, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Toward Precision Dosing of Lamotrigine During Pregnancy: Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling and Simulation.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSince 2005, the antiepileptic drug lamotrigine has been present in the market in various generic products, in addition to the original brand of Lamictal®. The linear pharmacokinetics and wide therapeutic window of lamotrigine enable seizure-free patients to easily switch from brand to generic antiepileptic drugs.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate the extent of variations in lamotrigine serum concentrations between two immediate-release tablet formulations. Data were compared with in vitro difference and similarity tests on dissolution profiles of the two formulations.
methodsDissolution characteristics of formulations A (reference) and B (test) were evaluated at three points spanning the physiologic pH range (pH 1.2, pH 4.5, pH 6.8). A model-independent approach of difference (f1) and similarity (f2) tests were applied to dissolution data. A clinical study was performed with 16 patients who were divided into two groups - one group received formulation A (n = 9) and the other received formulation B (n = 7). Lamotrigine steady-state concentrations were determined by high-performance liquid chromatography on a reverse-phase column.
resultsThere were no statistically significant differences in lamotrigine serum concentrations between the two groups, although formulation B had slightly higher mean concentration values (formulation A: 3.97 ± 4.1 μg/mL; formulation B: 5.78 ± 2.7 μg/mL). Dissolution profiles of the two formulations were similar in the pH 1.2 dissolution medium; however, the dissolution profiles of formulation B were outside the dissolution limit (≥85% at 15 minutes) in the pH 4.5 and 6.8 dissolution media.
conclusionsNo significant changes in the serum concentrations of lamotrigine were seen between the two investigated formulations. There is no evidence to suggest that the differences in dissolution profiles at pH 4.5 and pH 6.8 affect the therapeutic efficacy of the formulations. It is evident that the doses of test formulation given to the patients were higher as a consequence of common assumption that generic products have a lower absorption rate, which is proven unnecessary in this study. This investigation was a pilot study and thus further investigations with a larger sample size are necessary to determine if there is a connection between dissolution profiles and the therapeutic effect of investigated formulations.
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.