Correlation between prescribed daily dose, seizure freedom and defined daily dose in antiepileptic drug treatment
- 377 Downloads
Background Although defined daily doses (DDD) for antiepileptic drugs (AED) have been assigned only in combination therapy, based on the literature, most patients take them in monotherapy. Furthermore, discrepancies between DDD and prescribed daily dose (PDD) were observed. Objective First, to determine PDDs of AEDs and to reveal PDD/DDD ratio among seizure free versus not seizure free patients in everyday clinical practice. Second, to test the applicability of 75% cut-off of DDD to achieve seizure freedom. Furthermore, to find out what factors might influence PDD. Setting Outpatient data files at a Hungarian university hospital were studied. Methods A retrospective, 20-year cross-sectional database was compiled from 1282 epileptic outpatients’ files. Main outcome measure Seizure freedom and PDD were used as outcome measures. Results The mean DDD% of all prescribed AEDs increased steadily from monotherapy, through bitherapy towards polytherapy (p < 0.0001). Most seizure free patients took AEDs in doses in the range of ≤75% of DDDs in monotherapy and bitherapy. Older AEDs (carbamazepine and valproate) were given in a significantly higher mean dose in bitherapy in the seizure free group. Among the newer types, only levetiracetam and lamotrigine had a significantly higher DDD% in mono-, bi-, and polytherapy. Confirmed by logistic regression analysis, gender, age, type of epilepsy, and number of AEDs had a significant impact on the value of 75% DDD. Conclusion No significant unfavourable impact of the lower ratio of PDD/DDD on the outcome of achieving seizure freedom has been confirmed. As a measure of seizure freedom, 75% of DDD may be used, although individual therapy must be emphasised. Precisely quantified DDD would provide a more accurate calculation of other derived values.
KeywordsDDD Drug utilization review Epilepsy Hungary PDD
The authors thank the medical staff for active participation in the treatment.
This study was supported by the following grants: Grant of the Hungarian Ministry of Health (No. ETT 238/2006) and Research Fellowship of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Debrecen, 2012–2016 (OSTRAT/436/2012).
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 3.World Health Organization. History of DDD methodology. http://www.whocc.no/atc_ddd_methodology/history/. Accessed 10 Jun 2015.
- 4.World Health Organization. Guidelines for ATC classification and DDD assignment 2013. http://www.whocc.no/filearchive/publications/1_2013guidelines.pdf. Accessed 14 Dec 2015.
- 17.World Health Organization. International Classification of Diseases (ICD), 1994. http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/. Accessed 10 June 2015.
- 20.National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Newer drugs for epilepsy. London: NICE London, 2004. www.nice.org.uk/TA076guidance. (Technology Appraisal 76.) Accessed 4 May 2004.
- 21.Glauser T, Ben-Menachem E, Bourgeois B, Cnaan A, Chadwick D, Guerreiro C, et al. ILAE treatment guidelines: evidence-based analysis of antiepileptic drug efficacy and effectiveness as initial monotherapy for epileptic seizures and syndromes. Epilepsia. 2006;47(7):1094–120.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.Patsalos PN, Berry DJ, Bourgeois BF, Cloyd JC, Glauser TA, Johannessen SI, et al. Antiepileptic drugs–best practice guidelines for therapeutic drug monitoring: a position paper by the subcommission on therapeutic drug monitoring, ILAE Commission on Therapeutic Strategies. Epilepsia. 2008;49(7):1239–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.Guelen PJM, van der Kleijn F, Woudstra U. Statistical analysis of pharmacokinetic parameters in epileptic patients chronically treated with antiepileptic drugs. In: Schneider H, Janz D, Gardner-Thorpe C, Meinardi H, Sherwin AL, editors. Clinical pharmacology of antiepileptic drugs. Berlin: Springer; 1975. p. 2–10. ISBN 9780387069876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar