Reimers Arne, Olsson Patrik, Nilsson Johanna, Hoff Elin, Reis Margareta, Strandberg Maria, Lundgren Anders, Källén Kristina
Dept. of Clinical Pharmacology, St. Olavs University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway; Dept. of Laboratory Medicine, Children's and Women's Health, Faculty of Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
Clinical Sciences Helsingborg, Dept. Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Sweden; Dept. Specialized Medicine, Helsingborg General Hospital, Helsingborg, Sweden.
Epilepsy Res. 2017 Aug;134:54-61. doi: 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2017.04.017.
Switching patients from a branded antiepileptic drug (AED) to a generic is often challenging. Several studies have shown that considerable proportions of patients report deteriorated seizure control or increased adverse effects, enforcing a switchback to the original drug. Since tolerability and seizure control usually correlate with AED serum concentrations, we examined the fluctuation of levetiracetam (LEV) serum concentrations in patients with epilepsy before and after generic substitution.
This was an 18-week, naturalistic, open, prospective, two-center study. After a baseline period of 10 weeks, 33 outpatients on stable treatment with branded LEV (Keppra) either continued with this product or were switched overnight to a generic LEV preparation (1A Pharma) for an eight-week study period. Throughout the study, patients were monitored with bi-weekly LEV serum concentration measurements and seizure diaries.
16 out of 33 patients were switched to a generic LEV product. No switchbacks were seen. LEV dose, LEV serum concentrations, fluctuation index and concentration/dose-ratio (C/D-ratio) were not significantly different within-group (baseline vs. study period) or between-group. Large within-subject variability in serum concentrations was seen in both groups. None of the patients that were seizure-free before inclusion experienced seizures while on the generic LEV product.
Our results show equal fluctuation of LEV serum concentrations with branded LEV and the generic LEV. Most importantly, within-subject variability was much larger than the small, non-significant differences between brands.
将癫痫患者从品牌抗癫痫药物(AED)转换为通用型药物通常具有挑战性。多项研究表明,相当比例的患者报告癫痫发作控制恶化或不良反应增加,从而不得不换回原药。由于耐受性和癫痫发作控制通常与AED血清浓度相关,我们研究了癫痫患者在通用型药物替代前后左乙拉西坦(LEV)血清浓度的波动情况。
这是一项为期18周的自然主义、开放、前瞻性、双中心研究。在10周的基线期后,33名接受品牌左乙拉西坦(开浦兰)稳定治疗的门诊患者要么继续使用该产品,要么在一夜之间换用通用型左乙拉西坦制剂(1A制药公司生产),进行为期8周的研究期。在整个研究过程中,通过每两周测量一次左乙拉西坦血清浓度和癫痫发作日记对患者进行监测。
33名患者中有16名换用了通用型左乙拉西坦产品。未出现换回原药的情况。左乙拉西坦剂量、左乙拉西坦血清浓度、波动指数和浓度/剂量比(C/D比)在组内(基线期与研究期)或组间均无显著差异。两组患者血清浓度均存在较大的个体内变异性。纳入前无癫痫发作的患者在使用通用型左乙拉西坦产品期间均未出现癫痫发作。
我们的结果表明,品牌左乙拉西坦和通用型左乙拉西坦的血清浓度波动相同。最重要的是,个体内变异性远大于不同品牌之间微小的、无统计学意义的差异。