Pharmacokinetic interaction study between eslicarbazepine acetate and lamotrigine in healthy subjects
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Almeida L, Nunes T, Sicard E, Rocha J-F, Falcão A, Brunet J-S, Lefebvre M, Soares-da-Silva P. Pharmacokinetic interaction study between eslicarbazepine acetate and lamotrigine in healthy subjects. Acta Neurol Scand: 2010: 121: 257–264.© 2009 The Authors Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Munksgaard. Objective – Anti-epileptic drugs are often used in combination. Both eslicarbazepine (main metabolite of eslicarbazepine acetate, ESL) and lamotrigine undergo conjugation with glucuronic acid, and both eslicarbazepine and its glucuronide and lamotrigine glucuronide undergo extensive renal elimination; therefore, there is a potential for interaction. This study investigated the interaction between ESL and lamotrigine in healthy subjects. Methods – Open-label study in two parallel groups of 16 healthy volunteers each. After an 8-day treatment with ESL or lamotrigine, ESL (1200 mg once-daily) and lamotrigine (150 mg once-daily) were co-administered for 19 days. Geometric mean ratios (GMR) and 90% confidence intervals (90% CI) for maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the plasma concentration–time curve in the dosing interval (AUC0–24) were calculated for eslicarbazepine (ESL active metabolite) and lamotrigine. Results – The Cmax and AUC0–24 GMR (90% CI) were, respectively, 95% (87–102%) and 96% (91–102%) for eslicarbazepine, and 88% (82–94%) and 86% (81–92%) for lamotrigine. The 90% CI of the Cmax and AUC0–24 GMR fell within the prespecified acceptance interval (80–125%) both for eslicarbazepine and lamotrigine. Conclusion – There was no significant pharmacokinetic interaction between ESL and lamotrigine in healthy subjects. Therefore, no dosage adjustment appears to be usually required in either lamotrigine or ESL when the drugs are co-administered.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it