Summary:Purpose: To assess the clinical impact of monitoring serum concentrations of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy.Methods: One-hundred eighty patients with partial or idiopathic generalized nonabsence epilepsy, aged 6 to 65 years, requiring initiation of treatment with carbamazepine (CBZ), valproate (VPA), phenytoin (PHT), phenobarbital (PB), or primidone (PRM) were randomly allocated to two groups according to an open, prospective parallel-group design. In one group, dosage was adjusted to achieve serum AED concentration within a target range (10-20 p,g/ml for PHT, 1 5 4 0 pg/ml for PB, 4-11 pg/ml for CBZ, and 40-100 pg/ml for VPA), whereas in the other group, dosage was adjusted on clinical grounds. Patients were followed up for 24 months or until a change in therapeutic strategy was clinically indicated.Results: Baseline characteristics did not differ between the two groups. Most patients with partial epilepsy were treated with CBZ, whereas generalized epilepsies were most commonly managed with PB or VPA. PHT was used only in a small minority of patients. A total of I16 patients completed 2-year follow-up, and there were no differences in exit rate from any cause between the monitored group and the control group. The proportion of assessable patients with mean serum drug levels outside the target range (mostly below range) during the first 6 months of the study was 8% in the monitored group compared with 25% in the control group (p < 0.01). There were no significant differences between the monitored group and the control group with respect to patients achieving 12-month remission (60% vs. 61 %), patients remaining seizure free since initiation of treatment (38% vs. 41%), and time to first seizure or 12-month remission. Frequency of adverse effects was almost identical in the two groups.Conclusions: Only a small minority of patients were treated with PHT, the drug for which serum concentration measurements are most likely to be useful. With the AEDs most commonly used in this study, early implementation of serum AED level monitoring did not improve overall therapeutic outcome, and the majority of patients could be satisfactorily treated by adjusting dose on clinical grounds. Monitoring the serum levels of these drugs in selected patients and in special situations is likely to he more rewarding than routine measurements in a large clinic population.

In recent years several new drugs (oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, topiramate, gabapentin, zonisamide, tiagabine, fosphenytoin, vigabatrin and felbamate) have been added to the therapeutic armamentarium against epilepsy. Some of these represent structural modifications of pre-existing compounds, others were developed with the specific objective of modifying neurotransmitter function, and many more were found to be clinically useful even though their mode of action is unclear or differs from that originally planned. The pharmacokinetics of these drugs differ widely from one agent to another. Some (gabapentin and vigabatrin) are eliminated unchanged in urine and have little or no interaction potential; others (tiagabine, lamotrigine, topiramate, oxcarbazepine, zonisamide, felbamate) are subject to induction of metabolism by concomitant anticonvulsants; lamotrigine is vulnerable to metabolic inhibition by valproate, and felbamate is a powerful enzyme inhibitor in addition to being an inducer of the metabolism of carbamazepine and steroid oral contraceptives. All new antiepileptic drugs have been found to be effective in improving seizure control in patients with partial and secondarily generalized seizures. However, lamotrigine, topiramate, zonisamide and felbamate appear to have broader efficacy against both partial and many generalized seizure types, while vigabatrin is also valuable in the management of infantile spasms. In monotherapy studies, new drugs have not been found to be more efficacious than older agents, but some may offer limited advantages in terms of improved tolerability. On the other hand, serious toxicity restricts considerably the use of vigabatrin and felbamate. Overall, new drugs represent valuable tools in the fight against epilepsy, but because of limited experience and cost considerations their first-line use cannot be recommended in most situations.

Factors affecting the plasma concentrations of the R- and S-enantiomers of fluoxetine and norfluoxetine were investigated in 131 adult patients receiving long-term fluoxetine, of 10 to 60 mg/d (mean, 24 +/- 10 mg/d). Plasma concentration values (geometric means, CI 95%) in these patients were 186 (156, 223) nmol/L for S-fluoxetine, 67 (58, 77) nmol/L for R-fluoxetine, 247 (212, 287) nmol/L for S-norfluoxetine, and 118 (102, 137) nmol/L for R-norfluoxetine. The difference between the concentrations of the respective R- and S-enantiomers was statistically significant ( P< 0.0001) for both the parent drug and the demethylated metabolite. A significant correlation was found between the concentrations of each enantiomer and the prescribed daily dosage (r = 0.44, P< 0.0001 for S-fluoxetine; r = 0.48, P < 0.0001 for R-fluoxetine; r = 0.36, < 0.0001 for S-norfluoxetine; r = 0.32, P = 0.0003 for R-norfluoxetine), but the variability in concentration at any given dosage was considerable. When an iterative model based on multiple polynomial regressions was applied to determine the potential contributions of dosage, age, gender, body weight, and concomitant medication to the variability in the plasma concentration of the enantiomers, dosage was consistently found to provide the greatest predictive value. The predictive value of the model could be consistently improved when concentrations of other enantiomers were included as covariates. Of 58 patients with depressive symptoms for whom evaluation of clinical response (CGI scale) was available, 33 (57%) responded favorably to treatment. The plasma levels of individual enantiomers and of the active moiety (ActM, sum of the concentrations of R-fluoxetine, S-fluoxetine, and S-norfluoxetine) in these patients did not differ significantly from those found in patients with unsatisfactory therapeutic response. Likewise, the concentrations of individual enantiomers and of the ActM were similar in patients with or without adverse effects. Overall, these results demonstrate that the pharmacokinetics of fluoxetine and norfluoxetine exhibit marked stereoselectivity and considerable interpatient variability, which could not be explained by differences in gender, age, or comedication. In addition, a considerable variability was found in the enantiomers' concentrations associated with a favorable therapeutic response.

This emphasizes the need to treat the patient rather than the blood level. The same message is stressed in the ILAE guidelines, and we thank Dr. Meinardi for drawing the readers' attention to them.