Posts Tagged Pharmacokinetics

[Abstract + References] Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Antiepileptic Drugs in Women with Epilepsy Before, During, and After Pregnancy – Review


During pregnancy, the pharmacokinetics of an antiepileptic drug is altered because of changes in the clearance capacity and volume of distribution. These changes may have consequences for the frequency of seizures during pregnancy and fetal exposure to antiepileptic drugs. In 2009, a review was published providing guidance for the dosing and therapeutic drug monitoring of antiepileptic drugs during pregnancy. Since that review, new drugs have been licensed and new information about existing drugs has been published. With this review, we aim to provide an updated narrative overview of changes in the pharmacokinetics of antiepileptic drugs in women during pregnancy. In addition, we aim to formulate advice for dose modification and therapeutic drug monitoring of antiepileptic drugs. We searched PubMed and the available literature on the pharmacokinetic changes of antiepileptic drugs and seizure frequency during pregnancy published between January 2007 and September 2018. During pregnancy, an increase in clearance and a decrease in the concentrations of lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine’s active metabolite licarbazepine, topiramate, and zonisamide were observed. Carbamazepine clearance remains unchanged during pregnancy. There is inadequate or no evidence for changes in the clearance or concentrations of clobazam and its active metabolite N-desmethylclobazam, gabapentin, lacosamide, perampanel, and valproate. Postpartum elimination rates of lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and licarbazepine resumed to pre-pregnancy values within the first few weeks after pregnancy. We advise monitoring of antiepileptic drug trough concentrations twice before pregnancy. This is the reference concentration. We also advise to consider dose adjustments guided by therapeutic drug monitoring during pregnancy if the antiepileptic drug concentration decreases 15–25% from the pre-pregnancy reference concentration, in the presence of risk factors for convulsions. If the antiepileptic drug concentration changes more than 25% compared with the reference concentration, dose adjustment is advised. Monitoring of levetiracetam, licarbazepine, lamotrigine, and topiramate is recommended during and after pregnancy. Monitoring of clobazam, N-desmethylclobazam, gabapentin, lacosamide, perampanel, and zonisamide during and after pregnancy should be considered. Because of the risk of teratogenic effects, valproate should be avoided during pregnancy. If that is impossible, monitoring of both total and unbound valproate is recommended. More research is needed on the large number of unclear pregnancy-related effects on the pharmacokinetics of antiepileptic drugs.


  1. 1.

    Meador KJ, Baker GA, Browning N, et al. Effects of fetal antiepileptic drug exposure: outcomes at age 4.5 years. Neurology. 2012;78:1207–14.

  2. 2.

    Teramo K, Hiilesmaa V. Pregnancy and fetal complications in epileptic pregnancies. In: Janz D, Dam M, Bossi L, Helge H, Richens A, Schmidt D, editors. Epilepsy, pregnancy, child. New York: Raven Press; 1982. p. 53–9.

  3. 3.

    Harden CL, Pennell PB, Koppel BS, et al. Practice parameter update: management issues for women with epilepsy—focus on pregnancy (an evidence-based review): vitamin K, folic acid, blood levels, and breastfeeding. Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee and Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and American Epilepsy Society. Neurology. 2009;73:142–9.

  4. 4.

    Voinescu PE, Park S, Chen LQ, et al. Antiepileptic drug clearances during pregnancy and clinical implications for women with epilepsy. Neurology. 2018;91(13):e1228–36.

  5. 5.

    Tomson T, Landmark CJ, Battino D. Antiepileptic drug treatment in pregnancy: changes in drug disposition and their clinical implications. Epilepsia. 2013;54:405–14.

  6. 6.

    Patsalos PN, Berry DJ, Bourgeois BF, et al. Antiepileptic drugs: best practice guidelines for therapeutic drug monitoring: a position paper by the subcommission on therapeutic drug monitoring, ILAE Commission on Therapeutic Strategies. Epilepsia. 2008;49:1239–76.

  7. 7.

    Tomson T, Battino D, Bonizzoni E, et al. Dose-dependent risk of malformations with antiepileptic drugs: an analysis of data from the EURAP epilepsy and pregnancy registry. Lancet Neurol. 2011;10:609–17.

  8. 8.

    Tomson T, Battino D, Bonizzoni E, et al. Comparative risk of major congenital malformations with eight different antiepileptic drugs: a prospective cohort study of the EURAP registry. Lancet Neurol. 2018;17:530–8.

  9. 9.

    Briggs GG, Freeman RK, Towers CV. Drugs in pregnancy and lactation: a reference guide to fetal and neonatal risk. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2017.

  10. 10.

    Campbell E, Kennedy F, Russell A. Malformation risks of antiepileptic drug monotherapies in pregnancy: updated results from the UK and Ireland Epilepsy and Pregnancy Registers. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2014;85:1029–34.

  11. 11.

    Holmes L, Harvey E, Coull B. The teratogenicity of anticonvulsant drugs. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:1132–8.

  12. 12.

    Güveli BT, Rosti RO, Güzeltas A, et al. Teratogenicity of antiepileptic drugs. Clin Psychopharmacol Neurosci. 2017;15:19–27.

  13. 13.

    Meador KJ, Baker GA, Browning N, et al. Foetal antiepileptic drug exposure and verbal versus non-verbal abilities at three years of age. Brain. 2011;134:396–404.

  14. 14. Available from: Accessed 21 June 2018.

  15. 15.

    Johnson EL, Stowe ZN, Ritchie JC, et al. Carbamazepine clearance and seizure stability during pregnancy. Epilepsy Behav. 2014;33:49–53.

  16. 16.

    Reisinger TL, Newman M, Loring DW, et al. Antiepileptic drug clearance and seizure frequency during pregnancy in women with epilepsy. Epilepsy Behav. 2013;29:13–8.

  17. 17.

    Battino D, Tomson T, Bonizzoni E, et al. Seizure control and treatment changes in pregnancy: observations from the EURAP epilepsy pregnancy registry. Epilepsia. 2013;54:1621–7.

  18. 18.

    Thomas S, Syan U, Devi J. Predictors of seizures during pregnancy in women with epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2012;53:2010–3.

  19. 19.

    Öhman I, Sabers A, de Flon P, et al. Pharmacokinetics of topiramate during pregnancy. Epilepsy Res. 2009;87:124–9.

  20. 20.

    Patsalos PN, Gougoulaki M, Sander JW. Perampanel serum concentrations in adults with epilepsy: effect of dose, age, sex and concomitant anti-epileptic drugs. Ther Drug Monit. 2016;38:358–64.

  21. 21.

    López-Fraile IP, Cid AO, Juste AO, et al. Levetiracetam plasma level monitoring during pregnancy, delivery, and postpartum: clinical and outcome implications. Epilepsy Behav. 2009;15:372–5.

  22. 22.

    Sabers A, Buchholt J, Uldall P, et al. Lamotrigine plasma levels reduced by oral contraceptives. Epilepsy Res. 2001;47:151–4.

  23. 23.

    Sabers A, Ohman I, Christensen J, et al. Oral contraceptives reduce lamotrigine plasma levels. Neurology. 2003;61:570–1.

  24. 24.

    Vajda F, O’Brien T, Lander C, et al. The efficacy of the newer antiepileptic drugs in controlling seizures in pregnancy. Epilepsia. 2014;55:1229–34.

  25. 25.

    Öhman I, Beck O, Vitols S. Plasma concentrations of lamotrigine and its 2-N-glucuronide metabolite during pregnancy in women with epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2008;49:1075–80.

  26. 26.

    Pennell PB, Peng L, Newport DJ, et al. Lamotrigine in pregnancy: clearance, therapeutic drug monitoring, and seizure frequency. Neurology. 2008;70:2130–6.

  27. 27.

    Wegner I, Edelbroek P, De Haan GJ, et al. Drug monitoring of lamotrigine and oxcarbazepine combination during pregnancy. Epilepsia. 2010;51:2500–2.

  28. 28.

    Sabers A, Petrenaite V. Seizure frequency in pregnant women treated with lamotrigine monotherapy. Epilepsia. 2009;50:2163–6.

  29. 29.

    Reimers A, Brodtkorb E. Second-generation antiepileptic drugs and pregnancy: a guide for clinicians. Expert Rev Neurother. 2012;12:707–17.

  30. 30.

    Polepally AR, Pennell PB, Brundage RC, et al. Model-based lamotrigine clearance changes during pregnancy: clinical implication. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2014;1:99–106.

  31. 31.

    Fotopoulou C, Kretz R, Bauer S, et al. Prospectively assessed changes in lamotrigine-concentration in women with epilepsy during pregnancy, lactation and the neonatal period. Epilepsy Res. 2009;85:60–4.

  32. 32.

    Tomson T, Battino D. Pharmacokinetics and therapeutic drug monitoring of newer antiepileptic drugs during pregnancy and the puerperium. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2007;46:209–19.

  33. 33.

    Novy J, Hubschmid M, Michel P, et al. Impending status epilepticus and anxiety in a pregnant woman treated with levetiracetam. Epilepsy Behav. 2008;13:564–6.

  34. 34.

    Westin A, Reimers A, Helde G, et al. Serum concentration/dose ratio of levetiracetam before, during and after pregnancy. Seizure. 2008;17:192–8.

  35. 35.

    Garrity LC, Turner M, Standridge SM. Increased levetiracetam clearance associated with a breakthrough seizure in a pregnant patient receiving once/day extended-release levetiracetam. Pharmacotherapy. 2014;34:e128–32.

  36. 36.

    Cappellari AM, Cattaneo D, Clementi E, et al. Increased levetiracetam clearance and breakthrough seizure in a pregnant patient successfully handled by intensive therapeutic drug monitoring. Ther Drug Monit. 2015;37:285–7.

  37. 37.

    Tomson T, Palm R, Källén K, et al. Pharmacokinetics of levetiracetam during pregnancy, delivery, in the neonatal period, and lactation. Epilepsia. 2007;48:1111–6.

  38. 38.

    Petrenaite V, Sabers A, Hansen-Schwartz J. Seizure deterioration in women treated with oxcarbazepine during pregnancy. Epilepsy Res. 2009;84:245–9.

  39. 39.

    Westin AA, Nakken KO, Johannessen SI, et al. Serum concentration/dose ratio of topiramate during pregnancy. Epilepsia. 2009;50:480–5.

  40. 40.

    Ornoy A, Zvi N, Arnon J, et al. The outcome of pregnancy following topiramate treatment: a study on 52 pregnancies. Reprod Toxicol. 2008;25:388–9.

  41. 41.

    Johannessen Landmark C, Huuse Farmen A, Larsen Burns M, et al. Pharmacokinetic variability of valproate during pregnany: implications for the use of therapeutic drug monitoring. Epilepsy Res. 2018;141:31–7.

  42. 42.

    Reimers A, Helde G, Becser Andersen N, et al. Zonisamide serum concentrations during pregnancy. Epilepsy Res. 2018;144:25–9.

  43. 43.

    Oles KS, Bell WL. Zonisamide concentrations during pregnancy. Ann Pharmacother. 2008;42:1139–41.

  44. 44.

    Anderson GD. Pregnancy-induced changes in pharmacokinetics: a mechanistic-based approach. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2005;44:989–1008.

  45. 45.

    Wegner I, Edelbroek P, Bulk S, et al. Lamotrigine kinetics within the menstrual cycle, after menopause, and with oral contraceptives. Neurology. 2009;73:1388–93.

  46. 46.

    Herzog AG, Blum AS, Farina EL, et al. Valproate and lamotrigine level variation with menstrual cycle phase and oral contraceptive use. Neurology. 2009;72:911–4.

  47. 47.

    Thangaratinam S, Marlin N, Newton S, et al. AntiEpileptic drug Monitoring in PREgnancy (EMPiRE): a double-blind randomised trial on effectiveness and acceptability of monitoring strategies. Health Technol Assess. 2018;22:1–152.

  48. 48.

    FDA, CDER, CVM. Bioanalytical method validation guidance for industry. Silver Spring: Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM); 2018.

  49. 49.

    EMA. Guideline on bioanalytical method validation. Eur Med Agency Comm Med Prod Hum Use. 2015;44:1–23.

  50. 50.

    Art. 3 van het Besluit Geneesmiddelenwet. 2018. Available from: Accessed 22 Nov 2019.

  51. 51.

    Sabers A. Algorithm for lamotrigine dose adjustment before, during, and after pregnancy. Acta Neurol Scand. 2012;126:e1–4.

  52. 52.

    European Medicines Agency. New measures to avoid valproate exposure in pregnancy endorsed. London: European Medicines Agency (EMA); 2018. p. 1–4.

  53. 53.

    International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) and European Academy of Neurology (EAN). Valproate in the treatment of epilepsy in women and girls. Pre-publication summary of recommendations from a joint Task Force of ILAE-Commission on European Affairs and European Academy of Neurology (EAN). 2018. Available from: Accessed 22 Nov 2019.

  54. 54.

    Hernandez-Diaz S, Smith C, Shen A. Comparative safety of antiepileptic drugs during pregnancy. Neurology. 2012;78:1692–9.

  55. 55.

    Patsalos PN, Zugman M, Lake C, et al. Serum protein binding of 25 antiepileptic drugs in a routine clinical setting: a comparison of free non-protein-bound concentrations. Epilepsia. 2017;58:1234–43.

  56. 56.

    Kacirova I, Grundmann M, Brozmanova H. Concentrations of carbamazepine and carbamazepine-10,11-epoxide in maternal and umbilical cord blood at birth: influence of co-administration of valproic acid or enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs. Epilepsy Res. 2016;122:84–90.

  57. 57.

    de Leon J, Spina E, Diaz FJ. Clobazam therapeutic drug monitoring: a comprehensive review of the literature with proposals to improve future studies. Ther Drug Monit. 2013;35:30–47.

  58. 58.

    Burns M, Baftiu A, Opdal M, et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring of clobazam and its metabolite: impact of age and comedication on pharmacokinetic variability. Ther Drug Monit. 2016;38:350–7.

  59. 59.

    Shorvon S, Perucca E, Engel J Jr. The treatment of epilepsy. 4th ed. Chichester: Wiley; 2016.

  60. 60.

    Kacirova I, Grundmann M, Brozmanova H. Serum levels of lamotrigine during delivery in mothers and their infants. Epilepsy Res. 2010;91:161–5.

  61. 61.

    Lyseng-Williamson K, Yang L. Spotlight on topiramate in epilepsy. CNS Drugs. 2008;22:171–4.

  62. 62.

    Sills G, Brodie M. Pharmacokinetics and drug interactions with zonisamide. Epilepsia. 2007;48:435–41.

  63. 63.

    Kawada K, Itoh S, Kusaka T, et al. Pharmacokinetics of zonisamide in perinatal period. Brain Dev. 2002;24:95–7.

Download references

via Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Antiepileptic Drugs in Women with Epilepsy Before, During, and After Pregnancy | SpringerLink

, , ,

Leave a comment

[ARTICLE] The Importance of Therapeutic Time Window in the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury – Full Text

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major cause of death and disability. Despite its importance in public health, there are presently no drugs to treat TBI. Many reasons underlie why drugs have failed clinical trials, one reason is that most drugs to treat TBI lose much of their efficacy before patients are first treated. This review discusses the importance of therapeutic time window; the time interval between TBI onset and the initiation of treatment. Therapeutic time window is complex, as brain injury is both acute and chronic, resulting in multiple drug targets that appear and disappear with differing kinetics. The speed and increasing complexity of TBI pathophysiology is a major reason why drugs lose efficacy as time to first dose increases. Recent Phase III clinical trials treated moderate to severe TBI patients within 4–8 h after injury, yet they turned away many potential patients who could not be treated within these time windows. Additionally, most head trauma is mild TBI. Unlike moderate to severe TBI, patients with mild TBI often delay treatment until their symptoms do not abate. Thus, drugs to treat moderate to severe TBI likely will need to retain high efficacy for up to 12 h after injury; drugs for mild TBI, however, will likely need even longer windows. Early pathological events following TBI progress with similar kinetics in humans and animal TBI models suggesting that preclinical testing of time windows assists the design of clinical trials. We reviewed preclinical studies of drugs first dosed later than 4 h after injury. This review showed that therapeutic time window can differ depending upon the animal TBI model and the outcome measure. We identify the few drugs (methamphetamine, melanocortin, minocycline plus N-acetylcysteine, and cycloserine) that demonstrated good therapeutic windows with multiple outcome measures. On the basis of their therapeutic window, these drugs appear to be excellent candidates for clinical trials. In addition to further testing of these drugs, we recommend that the assessment of therapeutic time window with multiple outcome measures becomes a standard component of preclinical drug testing.

Therapeutic Time Window is a Key Element of Drugs to Treat TBI

Despite decades of research, there are currently no treatments for TBI other than palliative care (Diaz-Arrastia et al., 2014). The reasons for the lack of therapeutics are many; drug may have failed in clinical trials since most preclinical studies dose drugs immediately or soon after experimental TBI (Diaz-Arrastia et al., 2014). This experimental design fails to take into account the well-documented clinical phenomenon of treatment gap: the time individuals wait before seeking medical care after head trauma (Tanielian and Jaycox, 2008Demakis and Rimland, 2010). In 1991, one quarter of an estimated 1.5 million patients in America did not seek medical care after receiving a TBI that did not result in death or long-term institutionalization (Sosin et al., 1996). The multiple reasons given to postpone or avoid treatment include perceived symptom resolution, as well as the time and cost of treatment (Demakis and Rimland, 2010). Military personnel are particularly at risk for TBI. Lack of access to safe and accessible transportation for deployed military personnel can delay treatment up to 72 h after TBI (Farmer et al., 2017). Thus, treatment gap likely contributes to negative outcomes after TBI. Despite the importance of treatment gap, we know relatively little about the time course of pathophysiological events that can be successfully targeted with drugs first dosed many hours to days following TBI.

The treatment of thromboembolic stroke using tissue plasminogen activator illustrates the importance of time window in neurodegenerative diseases with a rapid onset. Thromboembolic stroke produces a complex and rapidly evolving injury with an overlapping, yet distinct, pathophysiology to TBI. Tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) is highly effective if dosed within 4.5 h of a stroke, yet its utility drops sharply after 4.5 h due to the increased probability of hemorrhage (Ahmed et al., 2013). Despite its established ability to prevent injury, only 2–5% of stroke patients receive t-PA (Miller et al., 2011). A major reason for the limited use of t-PA is its short time window (Miller et al., 2011). The experience of clinicians with t-PA to treat stoke suggests similar difficulties will arise if drugs to treat TBI have similarly short therapeutic time windows that fall off sharply.

Since no drug has received FDA-approval, a key unanswered question is: what is a clinically relevant therapeutic window for a TBI drug? Clinical trials at designated trauma centers have enrolled patients 4–7 h after a moderate to severe TBI. Even with the high skill of the clinical staff at these trauma centers; many patients could not be enrolled because treatment could not be initiated within 4–7 h. Less specialized hospitals are likely to have even longer treatment delays. To treat the largest number of patients, a drug or drug combination will likely need to retain high efficacy when first dosed 12 h after moderate to severe TBI. In contrast to those with severe or moderate TBI, patients with mild TBI often delay seeking medical help for days after injury until their symptoms do not abate (Sosin et al., 1996Tanielian and Jaycox, 2008Demakis and Rimland, 2010). Thus, drugs will need to retain efficacy when dosed days after injury to treat large numbers of patients with mild TBI.

Traumatic brain injury has a complex pathophysiology whether initiated by a blunt impact, penetration through the skull into the brain, or exposure to explosive blast (Dixon, 2017). TBI produces mechanical injury within seconds to neurons, glia, and vessels. This primary injury rapidly triggers a secondary injury that evolves for weeks to months (Dixon, 2017). Both primary and secondary injury damages both gray and white matter. Within minutes after primary injury, neurons lose the ability to control ion homeostasis, which results in accumulation of intracellular calcium, cell depolarization, excitotoxic release of glutamate and additional disruptions of ionic gradients (Weber, 2012Guerriero et al., 2015). Impaired mitochondrial function leads to energy failure; calcium accumulation and elevated reactive oxygen species are additional early events in secondary injury (Bains and Hall, 2012Weber, 2012Hill et al., 2017). Damage to vessels reduces cerebral blood flow resulting in hypoxia, hypoglycemia, and breakdown of the blood-brain barrier (Price et al., 2016). Inflammation rapidly follows TBI and persists for weeks to months after injury (Hinson et al., 2015). Acute inflammation is initiated by release by necrotic cells of damage associated molecular patterns (DAMPS) that activate astrocytes and microglia. Release of proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines lead to further breakdown of the blood brain barrier and recruitment of peripheral inflammatory cells. Microglia and astrocyte activation occurs rapidly in both gray and white matter; neuroinflammation may become chronic and continue to injure brain for months or years after injury. Later events in secondary injury include induction of cytogenic and vasogenic edema, increased intracerebral pressure, oxidative damage and necrotic and apoptotic cell loss (Bains and Hall, 2012Hill et al., 2017). Early events in white matter include damage to axons, impaired transport and swelling. Damage to oligodendrocytes leads to demyelination and oligodendrocyte loss (Narayana, 2017). White matter damage evolves for weeks resulting in Wallerian axonal degeneration.

The pathophysiological events of secondary injury are highly interconnected. If dosed before, or soon after TBI, a variety of drugs with diverse modes of action (anti-oxidants, glutamate receptor antagonists, and anti-inflammatories) greatly limit the scope of secondary injury (Diaz-Arrastia et al., 2014). These drugs are effective despite targeting only one component of secondary injury. This suggests that, early after TBI, multiple pathophysiological events trigger the spread of secondary injury. Thus, early blockade of any one of these many injury mechanisms results in a substantial, long-term therapeutic effect. As secondary injury evolves, the efficacy of most drugs rapidly diminish through loss of drug targets; the intensification of secondary injury greatly diminishes the therapeutic effect of inhibiting one injury mechanism. Drugs that retain efficacy when dosed at longer intervals after injury may target pathophysiological events that initiate slowly after injury. Alternatively, drugs with good therapeutic windows have multiple targets that can still reduce secondary injury even after its intensification over time.

The importance of therapeutic time window in treating TBI is illustrated by comparing the preclinical testing of progesterone and CDP-choline with the design of Phase III clinical trials testing the same drugs. Progesterone was tested in two recent Phase III trials for TBI. The PROTECT III trial (NCT00822900) recruited patients with moderate to severe TBI (Glasgow Coma Score 4–12) within 4 h post-injury while the SYNAPSE trial (NCT01143064) recruited patients with severe TBI (Glasgow Coma Score < 7) within 7 h (Skolnick et al., 2014Wright et al., 2014). Both trials were unable to demonstrate a therapeutic effect for progesterone. Prior to Phase III testing, numerous laboratories demonstrated a diverse set of therapeutic effects of progesterone in multiple rodent TBI models (Stein and Sayeed, 2018). Progesterone reduced glutamate release, prevented vasogenic edema, restored the blood brain barrier, improved aerobic respiration, and increased myelin and neurotrophin synthesis. Most importantly, progesterone reduced brain damage and improved multiple functional outcomes. Few drugs have had such wide preclinical testing on so many therapeutic outcomes. Virtually all of these studies, however, first dosed progesterone within 1 h or less after injury (Stein and Sayeed, 2018). Only three studies dosed progesterone between 4 and 6 h after injury and none of these studies performed a careful analysis of how the efficacy of progesterone changed after injury (Peterson et al., 20122015). A first dose of progesterone 4 h after experimental TBI decreased gray matter damage, improved motor function and limited astrocyte activation (Peterson et al., 20122015). A first dose at 6 h produced small improvements on expression of Nogo-A, GFAP, and GAP-43 (Liu et al., 2014). None of these studies examined multiple therapeutic time windows so it remains unknown how the efficacy of progesterone changed with increasingly longer times to first dose. A study of a first dose of progesterone 1 or 6 h post-stroke showed good retention of drug efficacy in a rat cerebral ischemia model (Yousuf et al., 2014). Little is understood, however, of how the analysis of therapeutic time window in animal models of stroke tells us whether an equivalent therapeutic window exists for TBI. The PROTECT III and SYNAPSE trials provided important information of how rapidly we could recruit and treat patients after moderate to severe TBI, however, due to the lack of appropriate preclinical testing, we do not know if progesterone retained sufficient potency to treat TBI when first dosed at 4–7 h after injury.

The Phase 3 COBRIT study tested the efficacy of CDP-choline on mild, moderate and severe TBI (Zafonte et al., 2012). Most patients (86%) received drugs within the first 24 h after injury. The COBRIT study did not show improvement in any outcome measures. Compared to progesterone, there was relatively little preclinical testing of CHP-choline. Dixon et al. showed that a first dose of CDP-choline beginning 24 h after injury produced mild improvements on beam balance and beam walk, and on acquisition of Morris water maze (Dixon et al., 1997). Two additional studies that dosed CDP-choline immediately after injury reported decreased lesion volume, increased neuroprotection, improvements in neurological tests, edema and protection of the blood brain barrier (Başkaya et al., 2000Dempsey and Raghavendra Rao, 2003). A potential hypothesized mechanism of action of CDP-choline was to improve lipid metabolism, yet no study examined whether CDP-choline limited white matter injury. As with progesterone, there are no studies examining the efficacy of CDP-choline at different therapeutic time windows. Thus, inadequate drug potency at the time when patients were treated may have contributed to the futility of the PROTECT III, SYNAPSE, and COBRIT trials.

TBI Pathophysiology is a Major Determinant of Therapeutic Time Window

The speed of secondary injury after TBI results in the rapid appearance and disappearance of drug targets (Dixon, 2017). Studies of the therapeutic time windows of methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor agonists and antagonists illustrate how therapeutic time windows arise from the interaction of drugs with changes in TBI pathophysiological changes over time (Guerriero et al., 2015). Excessive glutamate release activates NMDA receptors within minutes after the onset of TBI (Guerriero et al., 2015). NMDA receptor activation produces calcium overload and activation of calcium-activated catabolic enzymes (Weber, 2012). If dosed soon after injury, NMDA antagonists prevent this calcium overload and prevent neuronal loss (Shohami and Biegon, 2013). The short therapeutic time window of NMDA receptor antagonists is the consequence of the speed of the calcium overload after TBI (Shohami and Biegon, 2013Campos-Pires et al., 2015). Ongoing secondary injury subsequently produces a long-lasting downregulation of NMDA receptor expression. The loss of NMDA receptor function impairs synaptic plasticity and results in cognitive and memory deficits. The partial NMDA receptor agonist D-cycloserine when first dosed at 24 or 72 h post-injury improves Neurological Severity Score (NSS). A first dose of d-cycloserine at 24 h PI also improved performance of hippocampal-dependent tasks (Temple and Hamm, 1996Adeleye et al., 2010Sta Maria et al., 2017). A first dose of cycloserine at 24 h post-injury was also effective in rat model of pediatric TBI (Sta Maria et al., 2017). D-cycloserine improved performance on Novel Object Recognition and produced a mild improvement in acquisition, but not retention of Morris Water Maze (Sta Maria et al., 2017). Earlier dosing of d-cycloserine was ineffective at 8 or 16 h post-injury when NMDA receptors were downregulated (Adeleye et al., 2010). Thus, the different therapeutic time windows of NMDA receptor antagonists and agonists results from the differential consequences of NMDA receptor activation after TBI (Shohami and Biegon, 2013).

Are Studies of Therapeutic Time Window in Animal Models Relevant to Human TBI?

Animal models of TBI have been invaluable for our understanding of TBI pathophysiology (Xiong et al., 2013). Most of the secondary injury events that occur in clinical TBI also occur in animal models. This has validated the use of animal models to find drug targets to treat TBI. Virtually all studies of therapeutic time window have used rodent TBI models (Table 1 and Supplementary Table 1). Studies of therapeutic time window in rodents not only assume similar TBI pathophysiology in animals and people, but that these pathophysiological events occur with similar kinetics. Both humans and rodents rapidly develop edema, elevated extracellular glutamate, excitotoxicity and elevated intracellular Ca++2 after TBI or experimental TBI (Palmer et al., 1993Bullock et al., 1995Vespa et al., 1998Markgraf et al., 2001Hutchinson, 2005Weber, 2012). The increase in reactive oxygen species and its accompanying oxidative damage also occurs rapidly in animals and people (Bains et al., 2013Cornelius et al., 2013). A variety of plasma biomarkers (GFAP, UCh-1, Tau, and S100β) show similar kinetics in rodent TBI models and clinical TBI (Mondello et al., 2016Caprelli et al., 2017Korley et al., 2018Shahjouei et al., 2018). In both human TBI and TBI animal models, there is an acute and rapid increase in the levels of pro-inflammatory markers (Clausen et al., 2018Huie et al., 2018). These data suggest that studies using rodent TBI model can provide important insights into the therapeutic window of a drug to treat clinical TBI.

Table 1. Drugs with a therapeutic time window of 12 h or greater in animal models of TBI.



Continue —>  Frontiers | The Importance of Therapeutic Time Window in the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury | Neuroscience

, , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract] Pharmacological Optimization for Successful Traumatic Brain Injury Drug Development

The purpose of this review is to highlight the pharmacological barrier to drug development for traumatic brain injury (TBI) and to discuss best practice strategies to overcome such barriers. Specifically, this article will review the pharmacological considerations of moving from the disease target “hit” to the “lead” compound with drug-like and central nervous system (CNS) penetrant properties. In vitro assessment of drug-like properties will be detailed, followed by pre-clinical studies to ensure adequate pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of response. The importance of biomarker development and utilization in both pre-clinical and clinical studies will be detailed, along with the importance of identifying diagnostic, pharmacodynamic/response, and prognostic biomarkers of injury type or severity, drug target engagement, and disease progression. This review will detail the important considerations in determining in vivo pre-clinical dose selection, as well as cross-species and human equivalent dose selection. Specific use of allometric scaling, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic criteria, as well as incorporation of biomarker assessments in human dose selection for clinical trial design will also be discussed. The overarching goal of this review is to detail the pharmacological considerations in the drug development process as a method to improve both pre-clinical and clinical study design as we evaluate novel therapies to improve outcomes in patients with TBI.


via Pharmacological Optimization for Successful Traumatic Brain Injury Drug Development | Journal of Neurotrauma

, , , ,

Leave a comment

[Abstract] Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of incobotulinumtoxin A influencing the clinical efficacy in post-stroke spasticity – Expert Opinion on Drug Metabolism & Toxicology –

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of incobotulinumtoxin A influencing the clinical efficacy in post-stroke spasticityAbstract

Introduction: Post-stroke spasticity is a disabling neurological condition and may have a significant impact on quality of life. Ability to carry out activities of daily living is often compromised and painful contractures in the affected limbs may also develop. The prevalence of spasticity may be as high as 40% within the first year after the initial stroke event. Management of this condition focuses on improving muscle tone, function and pain. IncobotulinumtoxinA is effective in treating focal spasticity.
Areas covered: This review will summarize outcomes from incobotulinumtoxin A phase III trials in upper limb spasticity. Pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics will also be discussed along with future studies and possible indications. Literature searches used for this review include; PubMed and searches. Congress abstracts and case reports are not included.
Expert opinion: IncobotulinumtoxinA, is a 150 kiloDalton neurotoxin without complexing proteins and is well tolerated in patients with spasticity. There is an 80% improvement reported i spasticity and disability in several phase III studies. In the future, higher doses for upper and lower limb spasticity may be considered. Antibody formation does not seem to limit the administration of higher doses. Prospective studies are evaluating the efficacy of incobotulinumtoxin in children and adolescents with cerebral palsy. Furthermore, the clinical efficacy and immunogenic status of other botulinum neurotoxin A subtypes are currently under investigation.

View all related articles

Source: Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of incobotulinumtoxin A influencing the clinical efficacy in post-stroke spasticity – Expert Opinion on Drug Metabolism & Toxicology –

, , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: