Identification of modified atropaldehyde mercapturic acids in rat and human urine after felbamate administration

Qualitative structure-metabolism relationships in the hydrolysis of carbamates

The aims of this review were 1) to compile a large number of reliable literature data on the metabolic hydrolysis of medicinal carbamates and 2) to extract from such data a qualitative relation between molecular structure and lability to metabolic hydrolysis. The compounds were classified according to the nature of their substituents (R³OCONR¹R²), and a metabolic lability score was calculated for each class. A trend emerged, such that the metabolic lability of carbamates decreased (i.e., their metabolic stability increased), in the following series: Aryl-OCO-NHAlkyl >> Alkyl-OCO-NHAlkyl ~ Alkyl-OCO-N(Alkyl)₂ ≥ Alkyl-OCO-N(endocyclic) ≥ Aryl-OCO-N(Alkyl)₂ ~ Aryl-OCO-N(endocyclic) ≥ Alkyl-OCO-NHAryl ~ Alkyl-OCO-NHAcyl >> Alkyl-OCO-NH₂ > Cyclic carbamates. This trend should prove useful in the design of carbamates as drugs or prodrugs.

Structural alert/reactive metabolite concept as applied in medicinal chemistry to mitigate the risk of idiosyncratic drug toxicity: a perspective based on the critical examination of trends in the top 200 drugs marketed in the United States

Because of a preconceived notion that eliminating reactive metabolite (RM) formation with new drug candidates could mitigate the risk of idiosyncratic drug toxicity, the potential for RM formation is routinely examined as part of lead optimization efforts in drug discovery. Likewise, avoidance of "structural alerts" is almost a norm in drug design. However, there is a growing concern that the perceived safety hazards associated with structural alerts and/or RM screening tools as standalone predictors of toxicity risks may be over exaggerated. In addition, the multifactorial nature of idiosyncratic toxicity is now well recognized based upon observations that mechanisms other than RM formation (e.g., mitochondrial toxicity and inhibition of bile salt export pump (BSEP)) also can account for certain target organ toxicities. Hence, fundamental questions arise such as: When is a molecule that contains a structural alert (RM positive or negative) a cause for concern? Could the molecule in its parent form exert toxicity? Can a low dose drug candidate truly mitigate metabolism-dependent and -independent idiosyncratic toxicity risks? In an effort to address these questions, we have retrospectively examined 68 drugs (recalled or associated with a black box warning due to idiosyncratic toxicity) and the top 200 drugs (prescription and sales) in the United States in 2009 for trends in physiochemical characteristics, daily doses, presence of structural alerts, evidence for RM formation as well as toxicity mechanism(s) potentially mediated by parent drugs. Collectively, our analysis revealed that a significant proportion (∼78-86%) of drugs associated with toxicity contained structural alerts and evidence indicating that RM formation as a causative factor for toxicity has been presented in 62-69% of these molecules. In several cases, mitochondrial toxicity and BSEP inhibition mediated by parent drugs were also noted as potential causative factors. Most drugs were administered at daily doses exceeding several hundred milligrams. There was no obvious link between idiosyncratic toxicity and physicochemical properties such as molecular weight, lipophilicity, etc. Approximately half of the top 200 drugs for 2009 (prescription and sales) also contained one or more alerts in their chemical architecture, and many were found to be RM-positive. Several instances of BSEP and mitochondrial liabilities were also noted with agents in the top 200 category. However, with relatively few exceptions, the vast majority of these drugs are rarely associated with idiosyncratic toxicity, despite years of patient use. The major differentiating factor appeared to be the daily dose; most of the drugs in the top 200 list are administered at low daily doses. In addition, competing detoxication pathways and/or alternate nonmetabolic clearance routes provided suitable justifications for the safety records of RM-positive drugs in the top 200 category. Thus, while RM elimination may be a useful and pragmatic starting point in mitigating idiosyncratic toxicity risks, our analysis suggests a need for a more integrated screening paradigm for chemical hazard identification in drug discovery. Thus, in addition to a detailed assessment of RM formation potential (in relationship to the overall elimination mechanisms of the compound(s)) for lead compounds, effects on cellular health (e.g., cytotoxicity assays), BSEP inhibition, and mitochondrial toxicity are the recommended suite of assays to characterize compound liabilities. However, the prospective use of such data in compound selection will require further validation of the cellular assays using marketed agents. Until we gain a better understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms associated with idiosyncratic toxicities, improving pharmacokinetics and intrinsic potency as means of decreasing the dose size and the associated "body burden" of the parent drug and its metabolites will remain an overarching goal in drug discovery.

Role of Metabolism in Drug-Induced Idiosyncratic Hepatotoxicity

Rare adverse reactions to drugs that are of unknown etiology, or idiosyncratic reactions, can produce severe medical complications or even death in patients. Current hypotheses suggest that metabolic activation of a drug to a reactive intermediate is a necessary, yet insufficient, step in the generation of an idiosyncratic reaction. We review evidence for this hypothesis with drugs that are associated with hepatotoxicity, one of the most common types of idiosyncratic reactions in humans. We identified 21 drugs that have either been withdrawn from the U.S. market due to hepatotoxicity or have a black box warning for hepatotoxicity. Evidence for the formation of reactive metabolites was found for 5 out of 6 drugs that were withdrawn, and 8 out of 15 drugs that have black box warnings. For the other drugs, either evidence was not available or suitable studies have not been carried out. We also review evidence for reactive intermediate formation from a number of additional drugs that have been associated with idiosyncratic hepatotoxicity but do not have black box warnings. Finally, we consider the potential role that high dosages may play in these adverse reactions.

Can in vitro metabolism-dependent covalent binding data in liver microsomes distinguish hepatotoxic from nonhepatotoxic drugs? An analysis of 18 drugs with consideration of intrinsic clearance and daily dose

In vitro covalent binding assessments of drugs have been useful in providing retrospective insights into the association between drug metabolism and a resulting toxicological response. On the basis of these studies, it has been advocated that in vitro covalent binding to liver microsomal proteins in the presence and the absence of NADPH be used routinely to screen drug candidates. However, the utility of this approach in predicting toxicities of drug candidates accurately remains an unanswered question. Importantly, the years of research that have been invested in understanding metabolic bioactivation and covalent binding and its potential role in toxicity have focused only on those compounds that demonstrate toxicity. Investigations have not frequently queried whether in vitro covalent binding could be observed with drugs with good safety records. Eighteen drugs (nine hepatotoxins and nine nonhepatotoxins in humans) were assessed for in vitro covalent binding in NADPH-supplemented human liver microsomes. Of the two sets of nine drugs, seven in each set were shown to undergo some degree of covalent binding. Among hepatotoxic drugs, acetaminophen, carbamazepine, diclofenac, indomethacin, nefazodone, sudoxicam, and tienilic acid demonstrated covalent binding, while benoxaprofen and felbamate did not. Of the nonhepatotoxic drugs evaluated, buspirone, diphenhydramine, meloxicam, paroxetine, propranolol, raloxifene, and simvastatin demonstrated covalent binding, while ibuprofen and theophylline did not. A quantitative comparison of covalent binding in vitro intrinsic clearance did not separate the two groups of compounds, and in fact, paroxetine, a nonhepatotoxin, showed the greatest amount of covalent binding in microsomes. Including factors such as the fraction of total metabolism comprised by covalent binding and the total daily dose of each drug improved the discrimination between hepatotoxic and nontoxic drugs based on in vitro covalent binding data; however, the approach still would falsely identify some agents as potentially hepatotoxic.

Idiosyncratic adverse reactions to antiepileptic drugs

Idiosyncratic drug reactions may be defined as adverse effects that cannot be explained by the known mechanisms of action of the offending agent, do not occur at any dose in most patients, and develop mostly unpredictably in susceptible individuals only. These reactions are generally thought to account for up to 10% of all adverse drug reactions, but their frequency may be higher depending on the definition adopted. Idiosyncratic reactions are a major source of concern because they encompass most life-threatening effects of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), as well as many other reactions requiring discontinuation of treatment. Based on the underlying mechanisms, idiosyncratic reactions can be differentiated into (1) immune-mediated hypersensitivity reactions, which may range from benign skin rashes to serious conditions such as drug-related rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms; (2) reactions involving unusual nonimmune-mediated individual susceptibility, often related to abnormal production or defective detoxification of reactive cytotoxic metabolites (as in valproate-induced liver toxicity); and (3) off-target pharmacology, whereby a drug interacts directly with a system other than that for which it is intended, an example being some types of AED-induced dyskinesias. Although no AED is free from the potential of inducing idiosyncratic reactions, the magnitude of risk and the most common manifestations vary from one drug to another, a consideration that impacts on treatment choices. Serious consequences of idiosyncratic reactions can be minimized by knowledge of risk factors, avoidance of specific AEDs in subpopulations at risk, cautious dose titration, and careful monitoring of clinical response.

Pharmacokinetic Variability of Newer Antiepileptic Drugs

A new generation of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) has reached the market in recent years with ten new compounds: felbamate, gabapentin, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, pregabalin, tiagabine, topiramate, vigabatrin and zonisamide. The newer AEDs in general have more predictable pharmacokinetics than older AEDs such as phenytoin, carbamazepine and valproic acid (valproate sodium), which have a pronounced inter-individual variability in their pharmacokinetics and a narrow therapeutic range. For these older drugs it has been common practice to adjust the dosage to achieve a serum drug concentration within a predefined 'therapeutic range', representing an interval where most patients are expected to show an optimal response. However, such ranges must be interpreted with caution, since many patients are optimally treated when they have serum concentrations below or above the suggested range. It is often said that there is less need for therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) with the newer AEDs, although this is partially based on the lack of documented correlation between serum concentration and drug effects. Nevertheless, TDM may be useful despite the shortcomings of existing therapeutic ranges, by utilisation of the concept of 'individual reference concentrations' based on intra-individual comparisons of drug serum concentrations. With this concept, TDM may be indicated regardless of the existence or lack of a well-defined therapeutic range. The ten newer AEDs all have different pharmacological properties, and therefore, the usefulness of TDM for these drugs has to be assessed individually. For vigabatrin, a clear relationship between drug concentration and clinical effect cannot be expected because of its unique mode of action. Therefore, TDM of vigabatrin is mainly to check compliance. The mode of action of the other new AEDs would not preclude the applicability of TDM. For the prodrug oxcarbazepine, TDM is also useful, since the active metabolite licarbazepine is measured. For drugs that are eliminated renally completely unchanged (gabapentin, pregabalin and vigabatrin) or mainly unchanged (levetiracetam and topiramate), the pharmacokinetic variability is less pronounced and more predictable. However, the dose-dependent absorption of gabapentin increases its pharmacokinetic variability. Drug interactions can affect topiramate concentrations markedly, and individual factors such as age, pregnancy and renal function will contribute to the pharmacokinetic variability of all renally eliminated AEDs. For those of the newer AEDs that are metabolised (felbamate, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, tiagabine and zonisamide), pharmacokinetic variability is just as relevant as for many of the older AEDs. Therefore, TDM is likely to be useful in many clinical settings for the newer AEDs. The purpose of the present review is to discuss individually the potential value of TDM of these newer AEDs, with emphasis on pharmacokinetic variability.

Therapeutic drug monitoring of the newer antiepileptic drugs

The aim of the present review is to discuss the potential value of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of the newer antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) felbamate, gabapentin, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, tiagabine, topiramate, vigabatrin, and zonisamide. Studies of the relationship between serum concentrations and clinical efficacy of these drugs are reviewed, and the potential value of TDM of the drugs is discussed based on their pharmacokinetic properties and mode of action. Analytical methods for the determination of the serum concentrations of these drugs are also briefly described. There are only some prospective data on the serum concentration-effect relationships, and few studies have been designed primarily to study these relationships. As TDM is not widely practiced for the newer AEDs, there are no generally accepted target ranges for any of these drugs, and for most a wide range in serum concentration is associated with clinical efficacy. Furthermore, a considerable overlap in drug concentrations related to toxicity and nonresponse is reported. Nevertheless, the current tentative target ranges for felbamate, gabapentin, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine (10-hydroxy-carbazepine metabolite), tiagabine, topiramate, vigabatrin, and zonisamide are 125 to 250 micromol/L, 70 to 120 micromol/L, 10 to 60 micromol/L, 35 to 120 micromol/L, 50 to 140 micomol/L, 50 to 250 nmol/L, 15 to 60 micromol/L, 6 to 278 micromol/L, and 45 to 180 micromol/L, respectively. Further systematic studies designed specifically to evaluate concentration-effect relationships of the new AEDs are urgently needed. Although routine monitoring in general cannot be recommended at present, measurements of some of the drugs is undoubtedly of help with individualization of treatment in selected cases in a particular clinical setting.

Mechanisms of idiosyncratic drug reactions: the case of felbamate

Idiosyncratic drug reactions (IDR) are a specific type of drug toxicity characterized by their delayed onset, low incidence and reactive metabolite formation with little, if any, correlation between pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics and the toxicological outcome. As the name implies, IDR are unpredictable and often result in the post marketing failure of otherwise useful therapies. Examples of drugs, which have failed as a result of IDR in recent years, include trovafloxacin, zileuton, troglitazone, tolcapone and felbamate. To date there exists no pre-clinical model to predict these adverse drug reactions and a mechanistic understanding of these toxicities remains limited. In an attempt to better understand this class of drug toxicities and gain mechanistic insight, we have studied the IDR associated with a model compound, felbamate. Our studies with felbamate are consistent with the theory that compounds which cause IDR undergo bioactivation to a highly reactive electrophilic metabolite that is capable of forming covalent protein adducts in vivo. In additon, our data suggest that under normal physiological conditions glutathione plays a protective role in preventing IDR during felbamate therapy, further emphasizing a correlation between reactive metabolite formation and a toxic outcome. Clinical studies with felbamate have been able to demonstrate an association between reactive metabolite formation and a clinically relevant toxicity; however, additional research is required to more fully understand the link between reactive metabolite formation and the events which elicit toxicity. Going forward, it seems reasonable that screening for reactive metabolite formation in early drug discovery may be an important tool in eliminating the post-marketing failure of otherwise useful therapies.

Reactivity of atropaldehyde, a felbamate metabolite in human liver tissue in vitro

Antiepileptic therapy with a broad spectrum drug felbamate (FBM) has been limited due to reports of hepatotoxicity and aplastic anemia associated with its use. It was proposed that a bioactivation of FBM leading to formation of alpha,beta-unsaturated aldehyde, atropaldehyde (ATPAL) could be responsible for toxicities associated with the parent drug. Other members of this class of compounds, acrolein and 4-hydroxynonenal (HNE), are known for their reactivity and toxicity. It has been proposed that the bioactivation of FBM to ATPAL proceeds though a more stable cyclized product, 4-hydroxy-5-phenyltetrahydro-1,3-oxazin-2-one (CCMF) whose formation has been shown recently. Aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH) and glutathione transferase (GST) are detoxifying enzymes and targets for reactive aldehydes. This study examined effects of ATPAL and its precursor, CCMF on ALDH, GST and cell viability in liver, the target tissue for its metabolism and toxicity. A known toxin, HNE, which is also a substrate for ALDH and GST, was used for comparison. Interspecies difference in metabolism of FBM is well documented, therefore, human tissue was deemed most relevant and used for these studies. ATPAL inhibited ALDH and GST activities and led to a loss of hepatocyte viability. Several fold greater concentrations of CCMF were necessary to demonstrate a similar degree of ALDH inhibition or cytotoxicity as observed with ATPAL. This is consistent with CCMF requiring prior conversion to the more proximate toxin, ATPAL. GSH was shown to protect against ALDH inhibition by ATPAL. In this context, ALDH and GST are detoxifying pathways and their inhibition would lead to an accumulation of reactive species from FBM metabolism and/or metabolism of other endogenous or exogenous compounds and predisposing to or causing toxicity. Therefore, mechanisms of reactive aldehydes toxicity could include direct interaction with critical cellular macromolecules or indirect interference with cellular detoxification mechanisms.

The interface of preclinical evaluation with clinical testing of antiepileptic drugs: role of pharmacogenomics and pharmacogenetics

Despite the release of eight antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) during the last decade, the incidence of pharmacoresistant epilepsy has changed relatively little. Predicting efficacy and safety of AEDs in people with epilepsy from acute seizure models in rodents is difficult and risky. It is becoming increasingly clear that genetic polymorphisms play an integral role in variability in both antiepileptic drug pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. The publication of the human genome and increasing sophisticated and powerful genetic tools offers new methods for screening drugs and predicting deadly idiosyncratic side effects. In this review the use of pharmacogenomic and pharmacokinetic techniques in the development and monitoring of antiepileptic drug therapy is reviewed. Genetic techniques have the potential of identifying novel drug targets, predicting drug response, and identifying individuals at risk for serious idosyncratic reactions.

New antiepileptic drugs: review on drug interactions

During the Past decade, nine new antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) namely, Felbamate, Gabapentin, Levetiracetam, Lamotrigine, Oxcarbazepine, Tiagabine, Topiramate, Vigabatrin and Zonisamide have been marketed worldwide. The introduction of these drugs increased appreciably the number of therapeutic combinations used in the treatment of epilepsy and with it, the risk of drug interactions. In general, these newer antiepileptic drugs exhibit a lower potential for drug interactions than the classic AEDs, like phenytoin, carbamazepine and valproic acid, mostly because of their pharmacokinetic characteristics. For example, vigabatrin, levetiracetam and gabapentin, exhibit few or no interactions with other AEDs. Felbamate, tiagabine, topiramate and zonisamide are sensitive to induction by known anticonvulsants with inducing effects but are less vulnerable to inhibition by common drug inhibitors. Felbamate, topiramate and oxcarbazepine are mild inducers and may affect the disposition of oral contraceptives with a risk of failure of contraception. These drugs also inhibit CYP2C19 and may affect the disposition of phenytoin. Lamotrigine is eliminated mostly by glucuronidation and is susceptible to inhibition by valproic acid and induction by classic AEDs such as phenytoin, carbamazepine, phenobarbital and primidone.

Felbamate-induced apoptosis of hematopoietic cells is mediated by redox-sensitive and redox-independent pathways

Felbamate (FBM; 2-phenyl-1,3-propanediol dicarbamate) is an approved antiepileptic drug shown to be effective in a variety of seizure disorders refractory to other treatments. However, its use has been restricted because of association with occurrence of rare cases of aplastic anemia and hepatic failure. Since it was shown that FBM metabolism requires glutathione (GSH), we used two experimental protocols to determine if the effects of specific metabolites were sensitive to redox pathways. FBM and its metabolite W873 (2-phenyl-1,3-propanediol monocarbamate), at 0.1 mg/ml, induced increased apoptosis of bone marrow cells from B10.AKM mice as compared with B10.BR mice. Study of the effects of the drug on human promonocytic cell line U937 cells showed that FBM and the metabolite W2986 [2-(4-hydroxyphenyl)-1,3 propanediol dicarbamate], at higher concentrations (0.5 mg/ml), induced apoptosis in this cell line. We also observed that while FBM and its metabolites induced increased apoptosis of B cells with reduced intracellular GSH levels, addition of exogenous GSH decreased apoptosis induced by W873 but did not significantly affect apoptosis induced by FBM or W2986. Our results suggest that, at concentrations used during the present investigations, FBM metabolites induce apoptosis via redox-sensitive and redox-independent pathways.

Life-threatening adverse events of antiepileptic drugs

Treating a patient with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) may give rise to unexpected life-threatening adverse events. Despite extensive experimental and clinical testing to ensure safety, most AEDs on the market have been associated with cases of severe cutaneous reactions, serious hematological disorders, or hepatic failure. Most of these disorders emerge as idiosyncratic immune-mediated disease or are related to toxic metabolic products of the AEDs. Early diagnosis is the only means of reducing the harmful, potentially fatal effects of these reactions. A high degree of suspicion, knowledge of risk factors, and close physician-patient contact increases the likelihood of early diagnosis and treatment. When diagnosed, severe reactions must be fully documented and reported to health authorities. The very rare occurrence of life threatening events should not, in general, limit treatment decision-making. Future epidemiological, chemical, and genetic research might provide methods for ascertaining which patients are at risk, so undue exposure can be avoided.

Idiosyncratic reactions: new methods of identifying high-risk patients

This article describes the mechanisms of idiosyncratic drug reactions (IDRs) and provides an analysis of potential methods for identifying patients at high risk for antiepileptic idiosyncratic drug reactions. IDRs may be caused by toxic metabolites, either directly or indirectly (by way of an immunologic response or a free radical-mediated process). Four methods to potentially identify patients at high risk for AED IDRs are discussed: development of an "at-risk" clinical profile for a particular AED: identification of biomarkers that measure the formation of a toxic metabolite by a previously unrecognized bioactivation pathway for a particular AED; identification of biomarkers indicating deficient detoxification abilities [e.g., deficient free radical scavenging enzyme activities or low calculated oxidative protection (COP) ratios 1 and 2]; and identification of at-risk genetic markers. Clinical profiles for patients receiving valproic acid (VPA), felbamate (FBM), and lamotrigine (LTG) and who are at risk for development of AED IDRs are presented. Patients with VPA IDRs have deficient erythrocyte glutathione peroxidase activity, low plasma selenium concentrations, low COP1 ratios, and low COP2 ratios compared with age-matched controls. Patients with FBM-associated aplastic anemia have deficient erythrocyte glutathione peroxidase, superoxide dismutase (SOD), and glutathione reductase activities compared with age-matched controls. Use of at-risk clinical profiles (for VPA, FBM, and LTG) and measurement of erythrocyte glutathione peroxidase activity, erythrocyte SOD activity, and calculation of COP1 and COP2 ratios (for VPA and FBM) are inexpensive, simple methods of identifying high-risk patients for IDRs. Research is needed to further characterize the mechanism of IDRs, to investigate the clinical utility of free radical-scavenging enzyme activity measurement and calculation of COP ratios for other AED IDRs, and to develop additional methods of identifying patients at high risk for AED IDRs.

Progress report on new antiepileptic drugs: a summary of the Fifth Eilat Conference (EILAT V)

The Fifth Eilat Conference on New Antiepileptic Drugs (AEDs) took place at the Dan Hotel, Eilat, Israel, 25-29 June 2000. Basic scientists, clinical pharmacologists and neurologists from 20 countries attended the conference, whose main themes included recognition of unexpected adverse effects, new indications of AEDs, and patient-tailored AED therapy. According to tradition, the central part of the conference was devoted to a review of AEDs in development, as well to updates on AEDs that have been marketed in recent years. This article summarizes the information presented on drugs in preclinical and clinical development, including AWD 131-138, DP-valproate, harkoseride, LY300164, NPS 1776, NW 1015, pregabalin, remacemide, retigabine, rufinamide and valrocemide. The potential value of an innovative strategy, porcine embryonic GABAergic cell transplants, is also discussed. Finally, updates on felbamate, fosphenytoin, gabapentin, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, tiagabine, topiramate, vigabatrin, zonisamide, and the antiepileptic vagal stimulator device are presented.

New antiepileptic drugs in children: which ones for which seizures?

Until 1993, carbamazepine (CBZ), phenytoin (PHT), phenobarbital (PB), and valproate (VPA) accounted for the great majority of the prescriptions written for the treatment of epilepsy. Since 1993, five antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) have been released in the United States, and at least three additional drugs are expected to be released by the end of the year 2000. As a group, these newer drugs differ from the established drugs in terms of their pharmacokinetics, interaction potential, and adverse effects. In addition, any one of the newer drugs may achieve seizure control in situations in which an established drug had not. The newer drugs certainly represent a welcome addition to the existing options for the treatment of epilepsy in children. However, the availability of several new AEDs represents a therapeutic dilemma for the clinician because optimal use of these drugs has not yet been established. This is particularly true in children because (i) newer drugs are often studied less frequently in children, (ii) pharmacokinetics in children differ from those in adults, (iii) children may have different adverse effects, and (iv) children have a broader spectrum of various seizure types and epilepsy syndromes. In the first part of this review, the clinical pharmacology of the currently available newer AEDs is discussed individually, with special emphasis on data in children. In particular, pharmacokinetics, interactions, dosage and titration, efficacy spectrum, and adverse effect profile is discussed for each drug. In the second part, an attempt is made to determine the place for the newer drugs in the treatment of the different pediatric seizures and epilepsy syndromes.

Felbamate

Felbamate (FBM) was the first of the new antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) approved in the United States in 1993 with broad-spectrum efficacy against partial and generalized seizures of various types, and indicated for use as adjunctive and monotherapy. The identification of idiosyncratic aplastic anemia and hepatotoxicity, however, drastically curtailed its use. To update information concerning FBM and its idiosyncratic effects, case studies and literature reviews were undertaken. Thirty-four FBM-associated aplastic anemia patients have been reported, with 13 known fatalities. The overall FBM aplastic anemia risk is estimated at between 27 and 209 per million vs. 2 to 2.5 per million in the general population. Prior AED hypersensitivity, cytopenia, and immune disease significantly increase risk. FBM aplastic anemia has not been reported in children below the age of 13 years. Hepatic failure is much less common, occurring with an overall risk similar to that associated with valproate, but children below the age of 5 years have been affected. The recent identification of a reactive metabolite, atropaldehyde, and HLA studies suggest that high-risk patients can be identified. The efficacy profile of FBM should encourage further investigations to allow its better use, but at present FBM is not a first-line AED.

Quantification in patient urine samples of felbamate and three metabolites: acid carbamate and two mercapturic acids

PURPOSE

Previously we proposed and provided evidence for the metabolic pathway of felbamate (FBM), which leads to the reactive metabolite, 3-carbamoyl-2-phenylpropion-aldehyde. This aldehyde carbamate was suggested to be the reactive intermediate in the oxidation of 2-phenyl-1,3-propanediol monocarbamate to the major human metabolite 3-carbamoyl-2-phenylpropionic acid. In addition, the aldehyde carbamate was found to undergo spontaneous elimination to 2-phenylpropenal, commonly known as atropaldehyde. Moreover, atropaldehyde was proposed to play a role in the development of toxicity during FBM therapy. Evidence for atropaldehyde formation in vivo was reported with the identification of modified N-acetyl-cysteine conjugates of atropaldehyde in both human and rat urine after FBM administration. Identification of the atropaldehyde-derived mercapturic acids in urine after FBM administration is consistent with the hypothesis that atropaldehyde is formed in vivo and that it reacts with thiol nucleophiles. Based on the hypothesis that the potential for toxicity will correlate to the amount of atropaldehyde formed, we sought to develop an analytic method that would quantify the amount of relevant metabolites excreted in patient urine.

METHODS

We summarize the results of an LC/MS method used to quantify FBM, 3-carbamoyl-2-phenylpropionic acid and two atropaldehyde-derived mercapturic acids in the patient population.

RESULTS

Analysis was performed on 31 patients undergoing FBM therapy. The absolute quantities of FBM and three metabolites were measured.

CONCLUSIONS

This method demonstrated sufficient precision for the identification of patients exhibiting "abnormal" levels of atropaldehyde conjugates and may hold potential for patient monitoring.

Progress report on new antiepileptic drugs: a summary of the fourth Eilat conference (EILAT IV)

The Fourth Eilat Conference on New Antiepileptic Drugs (AEDs) was held at the Royal Beach Hotel, Eilat, Israel, from 6th to 10th September 1998. Epileptologists and scientists from 20 countries attended the conference, which was held to discuss a number of issues in drug development, including outcome assessment in epilepsy (long-term efficacy, quality of life, safety), cost-effectiveness, an update on drugs in development, a progress report on recently marketed AEDs, and controversies in strategies for drug development. This review focuses on drugs in development and recently marketed AEDs. Drugs in development include ADCI, AWD 131-138, DP16, ganaxolone (CCD 1042), levetiracetam (ucb L059), losigamone, pregabalin (isobutyl GABA [CI-1008]), remacemide hydrochloride, retigabine (D-23129), rufinamide (CGP 33101), soretolide (D2916), TV1901, and 534U87. New information on the safety and efficacy of recently marketed drugs (felbamate, fosphenytoin, gabapentin, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, tiagabine, topiramate, vigabatrin, zonisamide) and of a new antiepileptic device, the neurocybernetic prosthesis (NCP), has become available. This paper summarizes the presentations made at the conference.