A Pharmacokinetic Study and Correlation with Clinical Response of Rufinamide in Infants with Epileptic Encephalopathies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the relationship between the pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters and therapeutic and adverse effects of rufinamide (RUF) in children with epileptic encephalopathies (EE) aged <4 years. METHODS: PK analysis was conducted at the steady state using a previously validated liquid chromatography tandem-mass spectrometric method in 15 children aged 6-42 months treated with RUF in add-on. Responders were defined as patients who achieved >50% decrease of seizures. Tolerability was evaluated by analysis of a parental report of adverse effects, a clinical examination and laboratory tests. RESULTS: Maximum plasma concentration (47.40 ± 35.36 mg/l), average plasma concentration (39.94 ± 24.53 mg/l) and half-life (13.66 ± 4.43 h) were extremely variable and considerably higher than those reported in older children treated with the same dose regimen. At the last evaluation, 9 patients (60%) were responders. CONCLUSION: RUF is efficacious and is well tolerated in children with EE. Nonetheless, a correlation between dose, serum concentration and efficacy could not be demonstrated. The variability in measured concentrations may be related to polytherapy that is necessary for controlling seizures in this very severe form of epilepsy, in which the off-label use of RUF is justified.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".