MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Exposure–response analysis reveals that clinically important toxicity difference can exist between bioequivalent carbamazepine tablets

2007· article· en· W2035212715 on OpenAlexaff
László Tóthfalusi, Szilvia Speidl, László Endrényi

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmacogenetics and Drug Metabolism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioequivalenceCarbamazepinePharmacologyToxicityMedicinePharmacokineticsInternal medicineEpilepsy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT • The occurrence of central nervous system‐related adverse effects has been apparently related to the absorption rate of carbamazepine (CBZ). • However, the differing absorption rate metrics of four carbamazepine formulations in a bioequivalence study were unclearly associated with the incidence of adverse effects. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS • The relationship between the incidence of most neurological adverse effects and the absorption rate of CBZ was quantitatively established. • A mixed‐effect PK–PD model demonstrated the rapid development of acute tolerance to these effects. • Characterization of PD and PK–PD sensitivities showed that clinically significant differences in toxicity can exist between bioequivalent CBZ formulations. AIMS To 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. METHODS Results 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. RESULTS Rapid 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. CONCLUSIONS In 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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.042
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0420.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.218
GPT teacher head0.518
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Clinical PharmacologySame topicPharmacogenetics and Drug MetabolismFrench-language works237,207