左乙拉西坦单药治疗小儿癫痫的自身对照研究

目的研究左乙拉西坦作为单药治疗不同类型癫痫患儿的临床疗效和安全性。方法采用前瞻性研究,对62例不同类型癫痫患儿进行左乙拉西坦单药治疗。左乙拉西坦起始剂量为20 mg/(kg.d),分两次服用,每两周增加10 mg/(kg.d),维持剂量30～40 mg/(kg.d)。稳定期:维持加量期12周,每个月观察1次,以治疗前3个月的发病频率为基础,完成了6个月的观察期,随访6～24个月(平均随访12.8个月),观察发作频率的变化及不良反应。结果 62例入选患儿,完全控制发作38例,占61.3%,显效8例,占12.9%;有效9例,占14.5%;无效4例,占6.5%;加重3例,占4.8%。总有效率为88.7%,两年治疗保留率为72%。左乙拉西坦治疗前后发作频率改变有统计学意义(P0.005)。结论左乙拉西坦作为单药治疗小儿各型癫痫有良好疗效及安全性。     

左乙拉西坦添加治疗儿童难治性部分性癫痫疗效的Meta分析

目的系统评价左乙拉西坦添加治疗儿童难治性部分性癫痫的疗效和耐受性。方法计算机检索1998年1月-2017年1月Cochrane图书馆、PubMed、EMbase、中国知网中国期刊全文数据库和万方及中国生物医学文献数据库,并手工检索相关杂志,RevMan 5.3统计软件进行Meta分析。结果根据Cochrane 5.0.2版随机对照临床试验质量评价标准,纳入4项随机对照临床试验共498例受试者(左乙拉西坦组268例、安慰剂对照组230例)。Meta分析结果显示,左乙拉西坦组部分性癫痫发作频率减少≥50%的病例数高于对照组[OR=2.940,95%CI(1.99,4.34),P0.000 01];完全不发作病例明显高于对照组[OR=5.310,95%CI(2.49,11.32),P0.000 01]。左乙拉西坦组失访率与安慰剂对照组之间差异无统计学意义[OR=0.760,95%CI(0.32,1.82),P=0.54]。药物不良反应中嗜睡[OR=2.57,95%CI(1.36,4.86)]及精神行为改变[OR=2.54,95%CI(1.56,4.14)]与左乙拉西坦组显著相关(P0.05),其他不良反应与左乙拉西坦组无显著相关。结论现有Meta分析显示,左乙拉西坦添加治疗难治性部分性癫痫的疗效与安慰剂组相比效果显著。左乙拉西坦添加治疗儿童难治性癫痫部分性发作有确切的疗效,且长期治疗效果稳定,有良好的安全性,保留率较高,可在临床进一步推广使用。     

左乙拉西坦添加治疗肌阵挛-失张力癫癇4例报道

目的：探讨左乙拉西坦添加治疗肌阵挛-失张力癫癇（MAE）的有效性及安全性。方法：回顾分析4例左乙拉西坦添加治疗的MAE病例,并结合国外相关文献分析其有效性和安全性。结果：4例MAE患者添加左乙拉西坦治疗后癫癇发作均明显减少,其中3例完全无发作,最长无发作时间达6个月,并且无明显不良反应。结论：左乙拉西坦添加治疗MAE可能是一较好的治疗方案。     

左乙拉西坦添加治疗对学龄期难治性癫痫患儿认知功能与生活质量的影响

目的探讨左乙拉西坦添加治疗对学龄期难治性癫痫患儿认知功能与生活质量的影响。方法选取2013.1~2016.1在我院接受治疗的110例难治性癫痫患儿作为研究组,选取110例正常儿童作为对照组,用癫痫儿童生活质量量表(QOLCE)对研究组和对照组进行生活质量的评估和比较。患儿接受左乙拉西坦治疗8个月后,再次进行评估,与治疗前进行对比;同时比较四种不同癫痫类型患儿的治疗效果。结果简单部分性发作、复杂部分性发作、部分性继发全面性发作以及无法分类四种类型癫痫总有效率分别为90.9%、93.8%、85.7%和85.7%;研究组患儿身体各项评分均低于对照组,治疗后8个月研究组各项评分比治疗前有明显提高,其中社会功能以及认知功能得分提高幅度最为明显(P0.05)。结论使用左乙拉西坦治疗难治性癫痫患儿可以有效改善患儿的认知功能和生活质量。     

左乙拉西坦添加治疗难治性部分性发作癫痫疗效的Meta分析

目的系统评价左乙拉西坦添加治疗难治性部分性发作癫痫的疗效和药物安全性。方法计算机检索1998年1月-2010年12月Cochrane图书馆、MEDLINE、EMbase、社会科学引文索引、维普中文科技期刊、中国知网中国期刊全文数据库和中国生物医学文献数据库,并手工检索相关杂志,由两名研究者独立进行质量评价及数据分析,RevMan5．0统计软件进行Meta分析。结果根据Cochrane5．0．2版随机对照临床试验质量评价标准,纳入11项随机对照临床试验共1981例受试者（左乙拉西坦组1192例、安慰剂对照组789例）。Meta分析结果显示,左乙拉西坦组每周部分性癫痫发作频率减少≥50％的病例数高于对照组（1000mg／d：OR=2．990,P=0．000;2000mg／d：OR=3．870,P=0．000;3000mg／d：OR=3．440,P=0．000）;每周发作频率减少≥75％的病例明显高于对照组（100013mg／d：OR=3．130,P=0．000;2000mg／d：OR：5．060,P=0．000;3000mg／d：OR=4．730,P：0．000）;完全不发作病例明显高于对照组（1000mg／d：OR=5．080,P=0．001;2000mg／d：OR=4．420,P=0．050;3000mg／d：OR=4．150,P=0．000）。左乙拉西坦组失访率与安慰剂对照组之间差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。治疗期间常见药物不良反应包括嗜睡、头晕、乏力、鼻咽炎、精神行为异常等,两组精神行为不良反应方面存在异质性（P=0．360,12=8．000％）。结论现有证据显示,左乙拉西坦添加治疗难治性部分性发作癫痫的疗效与安慰剂组相比效果显著,保留率高;药物安全性应注意其所引起的精神行为异常。     

左乙拉西坦添加治疗难治性癫癎的疗效和安全性分析

目的:探讨左乙拉西坦添加治疗难治性癫痫的疗效和安全性。方法:回顾性分析了35例左乙拉西坦添加治疗的难治性癫痫患者,随访3～18个月,观察其疗效及不良反应。结果:左乙拉西坦添加治疗难治性癫痫总有效率为48.6%,对部分性发作和全面性发作的疗效无显著差异。不良反应发生率为31.5%,无严重不良反应。结论:左乙拉西坦是一种安全有效的难治性癫痫治疗药物,可以用于难治性癫痫的添加治疗。     

四川地区新型抗癫痫药物超说明书规定用药分析：一项对儿童患者的多中心调查研究

目的调查四JII地区左乙拉西坦、托吡酯、奥卡西平和拉莫三嗪等新型抗癫痫药物在儿童癫痫患者中超说明书规定用药（超说明书用药）的现状及安全性,以为临床制定相关用药指南提供数据,并为临床用药提供参考。方法收集2010年7月一2011年11月于四JIl大学华西第二医院、成都市妇女儿童中心医院和四川I省人民医院门诊接受抗癫痫药物治疗的儿童癫痫患者资料,统计此间应用抗癫痫药物的总病例数和服用4种新型抗癫痫药物的病例数。依据药品说明书适应证,判断使用新型抗癫痫药物的医嘱是否属于超说明书用药及其药物类型,并计算和分析超说明书用药发生率及药物不良反应。结果共854例癫痫患儿接受抗癫痫药物治疗,其中670例患儿服用4种新型抗癫痴药物中的一种或多种,超说明书用药者406例,占抗癫痫药物治疗总病例数的47．54％（406／854）,约占新型抗癫痫药物治疗总病例数的60．60％（406／670）。与按说明书用药患儿相比,超说明书用药患儿年龄更小、单药使用比例更高、全面性发作和癫痫综合征患儿比例更高,其病例数比例分别为左乙拉西坦78．50％（157／200）、托吡酯79．81％（253／317）、奥卡西平21．32％（42／197）和拉莫三嗪33．33％（21／63）;不同年龄、单药使用和各种发作类型中以左乙拉西坦和托吡酯超说明书用药现象更为突出。除失访病例外,超说明书用药组患儿以奥卡西平[16．67％（7／42）]不良反应发生率最高,其次分别为托吡酯[14．81％（36／243）]、左乙拉西坦[10．60％（16／151）]和拉莫三嗪[9．52％（2／21）],但是与按说明书用药组之间差异无统计学意义（x2=0．375、0．448、0．014、0．109,P=0．540、0．503、0．906、0．742）。结论在四川地区儿童癫痫患者中超说明书应用新型抗癫痫药物的发生率较高,其中以托吡酯和左乙拉西坦尤为突出,但新型抗癫痫药物在一定范围内超说明书用药仍具有较好的安全性和耐受性。     

左乙拉西坦治疗60例小儿癫痫的疗效和安全性分析

目的探讨左乙拉西坦在小儿癫痫治疗中的疗效和安全性。方法从我院2013-06—2014-06小儿神经内科专科门诊部收治的癫痫患儿中随机性抽取60例作为研究对象,采用开放性自对照随访研究方法。60例患儿均给予左乙拉西坦口服治疗,随访6~10个月,观察治疗前后癫痫发作频率变化、脑电图改变情况以及患儿治疗期间的不良反应,评价左乙拉西坦治疗小儿癫痫的疗效和安全性。结果本组患儿均成功获得随访,治疗后完全控制26例,有效20例,无效12例,加重2例,总有效率76.67%,且不同类型癫痫患儿治疗后的发作次数明显低于治疗前(P0.01)。脑电图检查痫样放电消失31例,痫样放电减少50%以上10例,痫样放电减少25%~49%9例,痫样放电无变化7例,痫样放电增加3例。本组治疗期间18例发生不良反应,不良反应发生率30.00%,主要表现为情绪异常、嗜睡乏力、皮疹等症状,给予对症治疗后均得到缓解,无严重影响治疗的不良反应。结论左乙拉西坦治疗儿童癫痫的疗效确切,不良反应少,是一种安全有效的药物。     

左乙拉西坦添加治疗成人癫痫部分性发作的效果观察

癫痫部分性发作是一种常见的癫痫发作类型,对人体的危害较大[1]。近年来,左乙拉西坦作为一种抗癫痫新药,主要用于癫痫患者部分性发作的加用治疗,在治疗成人癫痫部分性发作的过程中获得较好的效果。本研究选择104例成人癫痫部分性发作患者,探讨左乙拉西坦添加治疗成人癫痫部分性发作的临床效果,现报告如下。1资料和方法1.1一般资料从我院2011-05—2013-05收治的成人癫痫     

左乙拉西坦治疗小儿癫痫疗效的Meta分析

目的评价左乙拉西坦治疗小儿癫痫的疗效和安全性。方法计算机检索近十年(2001-2011)来PubMed、Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews、EMbase、中国知网(CNKI)检索平台、万方数据库中纳入左乙拉西坦治疗小儿癫痫的随机对照研究(RCTs),研究者对文献质量进行严格评价和资料提取。对符合质量标准的RCTs用Review manager 5.0软件进行Meta分析。结果 6个RCTs共610名患者纳入研究,其中治疗组(使用左乙拉西坦)333例,对照组(常规治疗)277例。Meta分析结果表明治疗组患者每周癫痫发病率明显低于对照组,对于患者继发嗜睡、头痛等中枢系统不良反应及肝肾功能损害方面,RCTs结果显示无显著差异。结论左乙拉西坦治疗不良反应种类少,对各种发作类型的小儿癫痫均有良好疗效,且不增加发生其他不良结局的危险性,可作为小儿癫痫患者的首选治疗方案之一。     

左乙拉西坦治疗难治性癫痫48例的临床研究

目的：探讨左乙拉西坦（Lev）添加剂量治疗难治性癫痫的疗效和安全性。方法：采用开放性自身对照方法,对48例（儿童23例,成人25例）难治性癫痫患者进行Lev添加治疗,并随访1年以上,收集治疗后患者发作频率变化、无发作情况、不良反应以及退出原因。结果：Lev治疗难治性癫痫总有效率为64．58％,成人有效率高于儿童,对部分性癫痫综合征有效率高;3、6和12个月无发作率分别为6．25％、18．75％和16．67％,保留率为81．25％、56．25％和43．75％。总不良反应发生率为39．58％,无严重不良反应,退出的最主要原因为对疗效欠满意。结论：LEV是一种安全有效的难治性癫痫治疗药物,对部分性和全面性癫痫发作均有效。     

左乙拉西坦添加治疗难治性部分性癫的疗效及其与多药耐药基因的相关性研究：随机双盲安慰剂对照临床试验

目的探讨左乙拉西坦添加治疗难治性部分性癫的临床疗效及其与多药耐药基因1（MDR1）的相关性。方法30例诊断明确的难治性部分性癫患者按照随机双盲安慰剂对照研究方法,分别予抗癫药物左乙拉西坦添加治疗和安慰剂治疗,初始剂量1g（2次/d）,2周后增至2g（2次/d）,再2周后增至3g（2次/d）,维持治疗12周后逐渐减量,进入减量/开放期。评价患者治疗期（16周）每周癫发作频率与回顾性基线期比较降低的百分比及发作频率减少50%的有效率。聚合酶链反应-限制性片段长度多态性检测患者基因型。结果30例患者中27例完成临床试验。基因型检测共检出CC基因型16例,左乙拉西坦添加治疗组（治疗组）9例（完全控制1例、显效3例、有效2例,发作频率减少50%的有效率为66.67%）,安慰剂组7例（仅1例有效,发作频率减少50%的有效率为14.29%）,组间比较差异具有统计学意义（Z=蛳2.013,P=0.042）;CT＋TT基因型11例,治疗组9例（完全控制1例、显效2例、有效4例,发作频率减少50%的有效率为77.78%）,安慰剂组2例。治疗组CC基因型与CT＋TT基因型患者疗效比较,差异无统计学意义（Z=-0.193,P=0.888）。结论左乙拉西坦作为难治性部分性癫患者的添加治疗药物临床效果良好,其主要药理学机制可能与左乙拉西坦是非多药耐药基因1编码的P-糖蛋白底物有关。     

Levetiracetam monotherapy in children with epilepsy

Although levetiracetam has shown efficacy in children with epilepsy, when used as adjunctive therapy, limited data are available regarding its use as monotherapy. The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of levetiracetam monotherapy in a cohort of pediatric patients with epilepsy. A retrospective analysis of pediatric epilepsy patients receiving levetiracetam at a single institution was performed over a 3-year period. Eighty-one patients were identified, 18 of whom received levetiracetam as monotherapy (mean age, 9.6 years). Epilepsy types were partial in 14 and generalized in 4. Conversion to levetiracetam monotherapy occurred in 16 patients due to lack of efficacy or adverse events, and 2 patients were initially started on monotherapy. Dose range of levetiracetam was 14-60 mg/kg, and duration of therapy ranged from 2-24 months. Eleven patients became seizure free on levetiracetam, one had at least 50% reduction in seizures, and six others had no change in seizure frequency. Adverse events included worsening of behavior, irritability, and possible cognitive changes, seen in 4 patients. Levetiracetam was discontinued in seven patients overall. Levetiracetam monotherapy appeared to be effective and well tolerated in this group of children with epilepsy and warrants further investigation in a well-controlled, prospective study.     

Efficacy and tolerability of levetiracetam in children with epilepsy

Objective: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of levetiracetam (Lev) in children with epilepsy. Methods: Open-label observational, prospective, single arm, non-interventional study examining patients (?14 years) with epilepsy, receiving mono- or combination therapy with levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was started at a dose of approximately 10 mg/kg/day. The dose was titrated up with 10 mg/kg increments if seizures were poorly controlled but the maximum daily dose could not be more than 60 mg/kg/day. Documented were seizure type and frequency, levetiracetam dose and side effects. Results: 120 patients (39.3% females, mean age 4.5 ± 3.9 years) were enrolled. Average duration of follow-up was 10.3 ± 3.5 months. At study endpoint, 64.8% of patients got seizure free and 83.0% got a seizure reduction of ?50%. Observed side effects were somnolence, dysphoria, nervousness, dystrophy, somnipathy, asitia, debilitation, etc. and the incidence rate in the study was 47.5%. Four (3.3%) of 120 patients withdrew because of intolerance of side effects. The estimated one year retention rate of levetiracetam was 73.3%. Poor effect was the most common reason for withdrawal. Conclusions: In our study, it seemed that levetiracetam was safe and effective for a wide range of epileptic seizures in children with epilepsy.     

左乙拉西坦单药治疗80例成人癫癎的疗效及安全性

目的：评价左乙拉西坦单药治疗各种类型成人癫癎的疗效和安全性.方法：80例各类型新诊断的成人癫癎患者,口服左乙拉西坦治疗,随访1年,观察治疗后患者癫癎发作次数变化及不良反应发生率.结果：左乙拉西坦单药治疗成人癫癎的总有效率为75.0%;对部分性发作可能更为有效,有效率为77.08 %;不良反应发生率为16.3%.因疗效不佳退出为18.75%.结论：在单药治疗成人癫癎中,左乙拉西坦是一种安全有效的抗癫药物,且对部分性和全面性癫癎发作均有效.     

多中心、随机、双盲、安慰剂对照评价普瑞巴林添加治疗部分性癫癎发作的疗效和安全性

目的 评价普瑞巴林添加治疗部分性癫（癎）发作的疗效和安全性.方法采用随机、双盲、安慰剂对照、多中心平行设计添加治疗的方法,确诊为有部分性癫（癎）发作的225例癫（癎）患者,被随机分配入普瑞巴林治疗组（114例）与安慰剂组（111例）.在6周前瞻性基线期后,采用灵活剂量的普瑞巴林（150～600 mg·d-1）添加治疗成人部分性癫（癎）发作.主要疗效指标：部分性癫（癎）发作28 d-反应率.次要疗效指标：部分性癫（癎）发作28d-减少率、临床疗效评价、16周内癫（癎）无发作和发作减少率≥50％的病例比例、第13～16周癫（癎）无发作和发作减少率≥50％的病例比例以及临床疗效总评量表评分;并观察研究药物的安全性与不良反应情况.结果 普瑞巴林组部分性癫（癎）发作28 d-反应率（-40.24±37.88）％,显著高于安慰剂组（-22.84±37.61）％（F=15.063 9,P=0.000 l）.普瑞巴林组和安慰剂组的不良事件发生率分别为60.53％和47.75％,组间无显著差异;但普瑞巴林组的不良反应发生率较安慰剂组高（45.61％ vs 23.42％,P=0.000 7）,主要不良反应有头晕、嗜睡、视物模糊、乏力等.结论 普瑞巴林组的疗效显著优于安慰剂组.普瑞巴林作为部分性癫（痈）发作的添加药物有确定的疗效,安全耐受性较好,具有一定临床应用价值.     

Efficacy of levetiracetam in children with epilepsy younger than 2 years of age

Despite the high incidence of epilepsy in very young children, the availability of approved antiepileptic drugs for this population is limited. This study assessed the efficacy and tolerability of levetiracetam in children younger than 2 years of age with various types of epilepsy. A single-center, retrospective chart review of 28 patients ranging in age from 2 weeks to 22 months treated with levetiracetam over a 2.5-year period was conducted. The mean dosage of levetiracetam was 39 mg/kg per day, and the mean duration of treatment was 6.3 months. The majority of patients (54%) were also taking 1 or 2 other antiepileptic drugs. A reduction in seizure frequency was found in 54%, with 14% achieving seizure freedom. Eight patients showed no response to levetiracetam treatment. Efficacy was highest among patients with generalized epilepsy. Adverse effects occurred in 2 patients and were behavioral in nature. Levetiracetam treatment was safe and effective in this group of very young patients with various types of epilepsy.     

慢性有机磷中毒致大鼠认知功能障碍模型

目的探索氧乐果染毒建立大鼠慢性有机磷中毒认知功能障碍模型的合理给药方式和剂量。方法经学习记忆训练筛选的Wistar大鼠按染毒给药方式分为灌胃组和皮下注射组(均n=40),两组再分别分为①灌胃对照组或皮下注射对照组(均给予生理盐水);②灌胃氧乐果小剂量组和皮下注射氧乐果小剂量组(均给予氧乐果2.5 mg·kg-1·d-1);③灌胃氧乐果中剂量组和皮下注射氧乐果中剂量组(均给予氧乐果5 mg·kg-1·d-1);④灌胃氧乐果大剂量组和皮下注射氧乐果大剂量组(均给予氧乐果10 mg·kg-1·d-1)。各组均n=10。观察染毒期间大鼠一般状态、存活情况和记忆再现能力;苏木精-伊红染色观察各组大鼠海马和肝脏形态结构变化。结果①各氧乐果染毒组均有轻微中毒症状,灌胃氧乐果大剂量组和皮下注射氧乐果大剂量组最显著,灌胃氧乐果中剂量组和皮下注射氧乐果中剂量组次之,灌胃氧乐果小剂量组和皮下注射氧乐果小剂量组中毒不明显;②灌胃氧乐果大剂量组大鼠死亡7只(存活率30%)、皮下注射氧乐果大剂量组死亡5只(存活率50%),不宜用于造模;③记忆再现测试:各染毒组大鼠记忆保持能力有不同程度的降低,皮下注射氧乐果中剂量组造模效果较理想;④肝变性细胞指数分析:皮下注射氧乐果低剂量组对肝脏损伤最轻;⑤海马变性细胞指数分析:灌胃氧乐果大剂量组和皮下注射氧乐果大剂量组海马细胞损伤最重,死亡率较高。以皮下注射氧乐果中剂量组为宜。结论皮下注射氧乐果5 mg·kg-1·d-1是建立大鼠慢性有机磷中毒认知功能障碍模型的理想方法之一。     

Efficacy and safety of levetiracetam in clinical practice: results of the SKATE trial from Belgium and The Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: Aim of the study was to assess the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam as add-on treatment in patients with partial-onset epilepsy in clinical practice. METHODS: In this observational, multi-centre study patients were treated with levetiracetam for 16 weeks. From a starting dose of 1000 mg/day, dose levels were adjusted at 2-weekly intervals in 1000-mg steps, to a maximum of 3000 mg/day, based on seizure control and tolerance. Analysis of efficacy was based on reduction in seizure frequency relative to baseline, 50% and 100% responder rates (for partial seizures and all seizure types combined) and percentage of patients using levetiracetam at the end of the study. Analysis of safety was based on occurrence of adverse events. RESULTS: The present analysis concerns the results of patients recruited in Belgium and The Netherlands. Of the 251 patients included in the study, 86.9% completed 16 weeks of treatment. Reduction in frequency of partial-onset seizures was 62.2%, with 19.3% of the patients becoming seizure free and 56.6% having a reduction in seizure frequency of > or = 50%. These percentages were more or less the same when calculated for all seizure types combined. Tolerance of levetiracetam treatment was good, with most adverse events being only mild to moderate in severity, and only 10.0% of the adverse events leading to discontinuation from the study. Asthenia, somnolence, dizziness and headache were the most frequently reported adverse events. CONCLUSION: Levetiracetam is effective and safe as add-on treatment for partial-onset seizures in clinical practice.     

Correlation Between Efficacy of Levetiracetam and Serum Levels Among Children With Refractory Epilepsy

BackgroundLevetiracetam is used as adjunctive therapy in various types of seizures. Studies evaluating the effect of levetiracetam on children with refractory epilepsy are scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate the correlation between serum concentration of levetiracetam and either efficacy or tolerability in children with refractory epilepsy, and to determine the value of levetiracetam blood level monitoring.MethodsMedical records of 50 children with refractory epilepsy treated with levetiracetam and regularly followed at Assaf Harofeh Medical Center were retrospectively reviewed. Trough serum levetiracetam concentration was determined using high-performance liquid chromatography and correlated with the administered dose and clinical report.ResultsNo correlation between levetiracetam serum levels and clinical efficacy, tolerability or administered dosage was found. The average dose of levetiracetam was 43.7 ± 20.0 (range 14-100) mg/kg/day and the average serum concentration was 16.0 ± 9.5 (range 2.5-38.5) μg/mL. Forty-five patients (95%) had more than a 50% reduction of seizure frequency, with 22 (44%) patients becoming seizure-free for at least 6 months. Adverse events related to levetiracetam were reported in 15 (30%) patients. No correlation between serum concentrations and adverse events was found. These results were not affected by gender, age, type of seizure, and other drugs.ConclusionsDetermination of serum concentration is not needed in all children treated with levetiracetam. Serum concentrations may be valuable either in patients with refractory epilepsy for compliance evaluation or in patients with satisfactory control of seizures for determination of their therapeutic baseline.