Objective To evaluate the pharmacokinetics of a purified oral cannabidiol (CBD) capsule administered with and without food in adults with refractory epilepsy. Methods Adult patients who were prescribed CBD for seizures, had localization‐related intractable epilepsy with ≥4 seizures per month, and qualified for Minnesota cannabis were enrolled. A single dose of 99% pure CBD capsules was taken under both fasting (no breakfast) and fed (high fat 840‐860 calorie) conditions. Blood sampling for CBD plasma concentrations was performed under each condition between 0 and 72 hours post‐dose and measured by a validated liquid chormatography‐mass spectometry assay. CBD pharmacokinetic profiles including maximum concentration (Cmax), area‐under‐the‐curve from zero to infinity (AUC0‐∞), and time‐to‐maximum concentration (Tmax) were calculated. The confidence intervals (CIs) for log‐transformed Cmax and AUC0‐∞ ratios between fed and fasting states were calculated. Seizure and adverse events information was collected. Results Eight patients completed the study. On average Cmax was 14 times and AUC0‐∞ 4 times higher in the fed state. The 90% CI for the ratio of fed versus fast conditions for Cmax and AUC0‐∞ were 7.47‐31.86 and 3.42‐7.82, respectively. No sequence or period effect for Cmax and AUC0‐∞ was observed. No adverse events were reported. Significance Administering CBD as a capsule rather than a liquid allows for more precise determination of pharmacokinetics parameters and is more representative of CBD swallowed products. The fat content of a meal can lead to significant increases in Cmax and AUC0‐∞ and can account for variability in bioavailability and overall drug exposure within patients with oral products.

There is limited information on infant drug exposure via breastfeeding by mothers who are receiving antiepileptic drug therapy.OBJECTIVE To provide direct, objective information on antiepileptic drug exposure through breast milk.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This prospective cohort study was conducted between December 2012 to October 2016, with follow-up in children until 6 years of age at 20 sites across the United States. Data were collected via an observational multicenter investigation (Maternal Outcomes and Neurodevelopmental Effects of Antiepileptic Drugs [MONEAD]) of outcomes in pregnant mothers with epilepsy and their children. Pregnant women with epilepsy who were aged 14 to 45 years, had pregnancies that had progressed to less than 20 weeks' gestational age, and had measured IQ scores of more than 70 points were enrolled and followed up through pregnancy and 9 postpartum months. Their infants were enrolled at birth. Data were analyzed from May 2014 to August 2019.EXPOSURES Antiepileptic drug exposure in infants who were breastfed. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe percentage of infant-to-mother concentration of antiepileptic drugs. Antiepileptic drug concentrations were quantified from blood samples collected from infants and mothers at the same visit, 5 to 20 weeks after birth. Concentrations of antiepileptic drugs in infants at less than the lower limit of quantification were assessed as half of the lower limit. Additional measures collected were the total duration of all daily breastfeeding sessions and/or the volume of pumped breast milk ingested from a bottle.RESULTS A total of 351 women (of 865 screened and 503 eligible individuals) were enrolled, along with their 345 infants (179 female children [51.9%]; median [range] age, 13 [5-20] weeks). Of the 345 infants, 222 (64.3%) were breastfed; the data collection yielded 164 matching infant-mother concentration pairs from 138 infants. Approximately 49% of all antiepileptic drug concentrations in nursing infants were less than the lower limit of quantification. The median percentage of infant-to-mother concentration for all 7 antiepileptic drugs and 1 metabolite (carbamazepine, carbamazepine-10,11-epoxide, levetiracetam, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, topiramate, valproate, and zonisamide) ranged from 0.3% (range, 0.2%-0.9%) to 44.2% (range, 35.2%-125.3%). In multiple linear regression models, maternal concentration was a significant factor associated with lamotrigine concentration in infants (Pearson correlation coefficient, 0.58; P < .001) but not levetiracetam concentration in infants.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Overall, antiepileptic drug concentrations in blood samples of infants who were breastfed were substantially lower than maternal blood concentrations. Given the well-known benefits of breastfeeding and the prior studies demonstrating no ill effects when the mother was receiving antiepileptic drugs, these findings support the breastfeeding of infants by mothers with epilepsy who are taking antiepileptic drug therapy.

About 80% of the consumers worldwide use herbal medicine (HMs) or other natural products. The percentage may vary significantly (7%-55%) among pregnant women, depending upon social status, ethnicity, and cultural traditions. This manuscript discusses the most common HMs used by pregnant women, and the potential interactions of HMs with conventional drugs in some medical conditions that occur during pregnancy (e.g., hypertension, asthma, epilepsy). It also includes an examination of the characteristics of pregnant HM consumers, the primary conditions for which HMs are taken, and a discussion related to the potential toxicity of HMs taken during pregnancy. Many cultures have used HMs in pregnancy to improve wellbeing of the mother and/or baby, or to help decrease nausea and vomiting, treat infection, ease gastrointestinal problems, prepare for labor, induce labor, or ease labor pains. One of the reasons why pregnant women use HMs is an assumption that HMs are safer than conventional medicine. However, for pregnant women with pre-existing conditions like epilepsy and asthma, supplementation of conventional treatment with HMs may further complicate their care. The use of HMs is frequently not reported to healthcare professionals. Providers are often not questioning HM use, despite little being known about the HM safety and HM-drug interactions during pregnancy. This lack of knowledge on potential toxicity and the ability to interact with conventional treatments may impact both mother and fetus. There is a need for education of women and their healthcare professionals to move away from the idea of HMs not being harmful. Healthcare professionals need to question women on whether they use any HMs or natural products during pregnancy, especially when conventional treatment is less efficient and/or adverse events have occurred as herbaldrug interactions could be the reason for these observations. Additionally, more preclinical and clinical studies are needed to evaluate HM efficacy and toxicity.

The pharmacokinetic profile and B-cell response to Reditux™ are comparable with those reported for MabThera™. Thus, MabThera™ can be substituted with Reditux™ for the treatment of B-cell lymphomas.