OBJECTIVE: Combination therapy is frequently required in the management of epilepsy. The primary objective of this study was to investigate the pharmacokinetic interaction between eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) 1200 mg once daily and topiramate (TPM) 200 mg once daily in healthy subjects. METHODS: Multiple-dose, open-label, one-sequence study in two parallel groups of 16 healthy male volunteers. After an 8-day treatment with ESL (Group A) or TPM (Group B), ESL and TPM were co-administered for 19 days. A bioequivalence approach based on a within-subject comparison was used to investigate a potential drug-drug interaction. End/start of treatment geometric mean ratios (GMR, %) and 90% confidence intervals (90% CI) were calculated for maximum plasma concentration (C(max)) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve over the dosing interval at steady-state (AUC(ss)) of eslicarbazepine (ESL major active metabolite), R-licarbazepine (ESL minor active metabolite) and TPM at Day 8 and Day 27. RESULTS: In Group A, eslicarbazepine GMR (90% CI) was 86.79% (81.06%; 92.94%) for C(max) and 92.70% (89.21%; 96.32%) for AUC(ss). In Group B, TPM GMR (90% CI) was 81.50% (77.48%; 85.89%) for C(max) and 81.81% (79.69%; 84.00%) for AUC(ss). The 90% CI of eslicarbazepine C(max) and AUC(ss) fell within the pre-specified bioequivalence range (80.00%; 125.00%), allowing it to be concluded that the extent of systemic exposure to eslicarbazepine was unaffected by the concomitant administration of TPM. The 90% CI for topiramate AUC(ss) was borderline in relation to the pre-specified bioequivalence range and topiramate C(max) fell outside the pre-specified bioequivalence range. Therefore, the extent of systemic exposure to TPM following co-administration with ESL was not formally bioequivalent to the extent of systemic exposure to TPM when TPM was administered alone. However, there was no difference between TPM elimination half-life following TPM co-administered with ESL and TPM administered alone (24.0 and 24.3 h, respectively). The bioavailability of R-licarbazepine was essentially bioequivalent. Two subjects discontinued due to adverse events. No clinical interaction appeared to be present in terms of adverse events when both drugs were given concomitantly. CONCLUSION: Concomitant administration of eslicarbazepine acetate 1200 mg once daily and topiramate 200 mg once daily showed no significant change in exposure to eslicarbazepine but an 18% decrease in exposure to topiramate, most likely caused by a reduced bioavailability of topiramate. No dose adjustment is required.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Combination therapy is frequently required in the management of epilepsy. The primary objective of this study was to investigate the pharmacokinetic interaction between eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) 1200 mg once daily and topiramate (TPM) 200 mg once daily in healthy subjects. METHODS: Multiple-dose, open-label, one-sequence study in two parallel groups of 16 healthy male volunteers. After an 8-day treatment with ESL (Group A) or TPM (Group B), ESL and TPM were co-administered for 19 days. A bioequivalence approach based on a within-subject comparison was used to investigate a potential drug-drug interaction. End/start of treatment geometric mean ratios (GMR, %) and 90% confidence intervals (90% CI) were calculated for maximum plasma concentration (C(max)) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve over the dosing interval at steady-state (AUC(ss)) of eslicarbazepine (ESL major active metabolite), R-licarbazepine (ESL minor active metabolite) and TPM at Day 8 and Day 27. RESULTS: In Group A, eslicarbazepine GMR (90% CI) was 86.79% (81.06%; 92.94%) for C(max) and 92.70% (89.21%; 96.32%) for AUC(ss). In Group B, TPMGMR (90% CI) was 81.50% (77.48%; 85.89%) for C(max) and 81.81% (79.69%; 84.00%) for AUC(ss). The 90% CI of eslicarbazepine C(max) and AUC(ss) fell within the pre-specified bioequivalence range (80.00%; 125.00%), allowing it to be concluded that the extent of systemic exposure to eslicarbazepine was unaffected by the concomitant administration of TPM. The 90% CI for topiramate AUC(ss) was borderline in relation to the pre-specified bioequivalence range and topiramate C(max) fell outside the pre-specified bioequivalence range. Therefore, the extent of systemic exposure to TPM following co-administration with ESL was not formally bioequivalent to the extent of systemic exposure to TPM when TPM was administered alone. However, there was no difference between TPM elimination half-life following TPM co-administered with ESL and TPM administered alone (24.0 and 24.3 h, respectively). The bioavailability of R-licarbazepine was essentially bioequivalent. Two subjects discontinued due to adverse events. No clinical interaction appeared to be present in terms of adverse events when both drugs were given concomitantly. CONCLUSION: Concomitant administration of eslicarbazepine acetate 1200 mg once daily and topiramate 200 mg once daily showed no significant change in exposure to eslicarbazepine but an 18% decrease in exposure to topiramate, most likely caused by a reduced bioavailability of topiramate. No dose adjustment is required.