Felbamate as an add-on therapy for refractory epilepsy

Felbamate add-on therapy for drug-resistant focal epilepsy

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review first published in 2011, and most recently updated in 2019. Epilepsy is a chronic and disabling neurological disorder, affecting approximately 1% of the population. Up to 30% of people with epilepsy have seizures that are resistant to currently available antiepileptic drugs and require treatment with multiple antiepileptic drugs in combination. Felbamate is a second-generation antiepileptic drug that can be used as add-on therapy to standard antiepileptic drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of felbamate versus placebo when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant focal-onset epilepsy.

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 13 July 2021) on 15 July 2021. There were no language or time restrictions. We reviewed the reference lists of retrieved studies to search for additional reports of relevant studies. We also contacted the manufacturers of felbamate and experts in the field for information about any unpublished or ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised placebo-controlled add-on studies of people of any age with drug-resistant focal seizures. The studies could be double-blind, single-blind or unblinded and could be of parallel-group or cross-over design.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted information. In the case of disagreements, a third review author arbitrated. Review authors assessed the following outcomes: 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; absolute or percentage reduction in seizure frequency; treatment withdrawal; adverse effects; quality of life.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four randomised controlled trials, representing a total of 236 participants, in the review. Two trials had parallel-group design, the third had a two-period cross-over design, and the fourth had a three-period cross-over design. We judged all four studies to be at an unclear risk of bias overall. Bias arose from the incomplete reporting of methodological details, the incomplete and selective reporting of outcome data, and from participants having unstable drug regimens during experimental treatment in one trial. Due to significant methodological heterogeneity, clinical heterogeneity and differences in outcome measures, it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis of the extracted data. Only one study reported the outcome of 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency, whilst three studies reported percentage reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo. One study claimed an average seizure reduction of 35.8% with add-on felbamate whilst another study claimed a more modest reduction of 4.2%. Both studies reported that seizure frequency increased with add-on placebo and that there was a significant difference in seizure reduction between felbamate and placebo (P = 0.0005 and P = 0.018, respectively). The third study reported a 14% reduction in seizure frequency with add-on felbamate but stated that the difference between treatments was not significant. There were conflicting results regarding treatment withdrawal. One study reported a higher treatment withdrawal for placebo-randomised participants, whereas the other three studies reported higher treatment withdrawal rates for felbamate-randomised participants. Notably, the treatment withdrawal rates for felbamate treatment groups across all four studies remained reasonably low (less than 10%), suggesting that felbamate may be well tolerated. Felbamate-randomised participants most commonly withdrew from treatment due to adverse effects. The adverse effects consistently reported by all four studies were headache, dizziness and nausea. All three adverse effects were reported by 23% to 40% of felbamate-treated participants versus 3% to 15% of placebo-treated participants. We assessed the evidence for all outcomes using GRADE and rated the evidence as very low certainty, meaning that we have little confidence in the findings reported. We mainly downgraded evidence for imprecision due to the narrative synthesis conducted and the low number of events. We stress that the true effect of felbamate could likely be significantly different from that reported in this current review update.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In view of the methodological deficiencies, the limited number of included studies and the differences in outcome measures, we have found no reliable evidence to support the use of felbamate as an add-on therapy in people with drug-resistant focal-onset epilepsy. A large-scale, randomised controlled trial conducted over a longer period of time is required to inform clinical practice.

Felbamate add-on therapy for drug-resistant focal epilepsy

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2017.Epilepsy is a chronic and disabling neurological disorder, affecting approximately 1% of the population. Up to 30% of people with epilepsy have seizures that are resistant to currently available antiepileptic drugs and require treatment with multiple antiepileptic drugs in combination. Felbamate is a second-generation antiepileptic drug that can be used as add-on therapy to standard antiepileptic drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of felbamate versus placebo when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant focal-onset epilepsy.

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), on 18 December 2018. There were no language or time restrictions. We reviewed the reference lists of retrieved studies to search for additional reports of relevant studies. We also contacted the manufacturers of felbamate and experts in the field for information about any unpublished or ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised placebo-controlled add-on studies of people of any age with drug-resistant focal seizures. The studies could be double-blind, single-blind or unblinded and could be of parallel-group or cross-over design.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted information. In the case of disagreements, the third review author arbitrated. Review authors assessed the following outcomes: 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; absolute or percentage reduction in seizure frequency; treatment withdrawal; adverse effects; quality of life.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four randomised controlled trials, representing a total of 236 participants, in the review. Two trials had parallel-group design, the third had a two-period cross-over design, and the fourth had a three-period cross-over design. We judged all four studies to be at an unclear risk of bias overall. Bias arose from the incomplete reporting of methodological details, the incomplete and selective reporting of outcome data, and from participants having unstable drug regimens during experimental treatment in one trial. Due to significant methodological heterogeneity, clinical heterogeneity and differences in outcome measures, it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis of the extracted data.Only one study reported the outcome, 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency, whilst three studies reported percentage reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo. One study claimed an average seizure reduction of 35.8% with add-on felbamate while another study claimed a more modest reduction of 4.2%. Both studies reported that seizure frequency increased with add-on placebo and that there was a significant difference in seizure reduction between felbamate and placebo (P = 0.0005 and P = 0.018, respectively). The third study reported a 14% reduction in seizure frequency with add-on felbamate but stated that the difference between treatments was not significant. There were conflicting results regarding treatment withdrawal. One study reported a higher treatment withdrawal for placebo-randomised participants, whereas the other three studies reported higher treatment withdrawal rates for felbamate-randomised participants. Notably, the treatment withdrawal rates for felbamate treatment groups across all four studies remained reasonably low (less than 10%), suggesting that felbamate may be well tolerated. Felbamate-randomised participants most commonly withdrew from treatment due to adverse effects. The adverse effects consistently reported by all four studies were: headache, dizziness and nausea. All three adverse effects were reported by 23% to 40% of felbamate-treated participants versus 3% to 15% of placebo-treated participants.We assessed the evidence for all outcomes using GRADE and found it as being very-low certainty, meaning that we have little confidence in the findings reported. We mainly downgraded evidence for imprecision due to the narrative synthesis conducted and the low number of events. We stress that the true effect of felbamate could likely be significantly different from that reported in this current review update.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In view of the methodological deficiencies, the limited number of included studies and the differences in outcome measures, we have found no reliable evidence to support the use of felbamate as an add-on therapy in people with drug-resistant focal-onset epilepsy. A large-scale, randomised controlled trial conducted over a longer period of time is required to inform clinical practice.

Felbamate as an add-on therapy for refractory partial epilepsy

BACKGROUND

This review is an update of a previously published review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issue 7, 2014) on 'Felbamate as an add-on therapy for refractory epilepsy'. Epilepsy is a chronic and disabling neurologic disorder, affecting approximately 1% of the population. Up to 30% of people with epilepsy have seizures that are resistant to currently available drugs. Felbamate is one of the second-generation antiepileptic drugs and we have assessed its effects as an add-on therapy to standard drugs in this review.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of felbamate versus placebo when used as an add-on treatment for people with refractory partial-onset epilepsy.

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, up to 20 October 2016. There were no language and time restrictions. We reviewed the reference lists of retrieved studies to search for additional reports of relevant studies. We also contacted the manufacturers of felbamate and experts in the field for information about any unpublished or ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised placebo-controlled add-on studies of people of any age with refractory partial-onset seizures. The studies could be double-blind, single-blind or unblinded and could be of parallel or cross-over design.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted information. We resolved disagreements by discussion. If disagreements persisted, the third review author arbitrated. We assessed the following outcomes: 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; absolute or percentage reduction in seizure frequency; treatment withdrawal; adverse effects; quality of life.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four randomised controlled trials with a total of 236 participants. Two trials were parallel design, the third had a two-period cross-over design, and the fourth had a three-period cross-over design. Two studies were at an unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation and allocation concealment. These two studies did not include any description of their methods for outcome assessment and performance blinding (i.e. participants or doctors). Two studies were at high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data. Due to significant methodological heterogeneity, clinical heterogeneity and differences in outcome measures, it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis of the results. Only one study reported 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency. One study reported absolute and percentage reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo, P values were 0.046 and 0.018, respectively. One study reported percentage reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo, but there were no P values. Adverse effects rates were higher during the felbamate period than the placebo period, particularly headache, nausea and dizziness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In view of the methodological deficiencies, limited number of individual studies and differences in outcome measures, we have found no reliable evidence to support the use of felbamate as an add-on therapy in people with refractory partial-onset epilepsy. A large-scale, randomised controlled trial conducted over a longer period of time is required to inform clinical practice.

Antiepileptic Drug Treatment in Children with Epilepsy

Most children with new-onset epilepsy achieve seizure freedom with appropriate antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). However, nearly 20 % will continue to have seizures despite AEDs, as either monotherapy or in combination. Despite the growing market of new molecules over the last 20 years, the proportion of drug-resistant epilepsies has not changed. In this review, we report the evidence of efficacy and safety based on phase III randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of AEDs currently used in the paediatric population. We conducted a literature search using the PubMed database and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We also analysed the RCTs of newer AEDs whose efficacy in adolescents and adults might suggest possible use in children. Most of the phase III trials on AEDs in children have major methodological limitations that considerably limit meaningful conclusions about comparative efficacy between old and new molecules. Since the efficacy of new drugs has only been reported versus placebo, the commonly held opinion that new and newer AEDs have a better safety profile than old ones does not appear to be supported by evidence. Despite limited solid evidence, pharmacological management has improved over the years as a consequence of increased awareness of some degree of specificity of treatment in relation to different epilepsy syndromes and attention to adverse events. Future research should be directed taking these factors, as well as the diversity of epilepsy, into consideration.

New generation antiepileptic drugs: what do they offer in terms of improved tolerability and safety?

Over the last two decades a total of 11 antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) have been introduced to the US market. Randomized, placebo-controlled trials have yielded information about each drug's efficacy, tolerability, and safety profile; however, few studies have compared the newer generation AEDs directly with the older generation. Comparative studies are not always straightforward in their interpretation, as many characteristics of drugs, both favorable and unfavorable, may not be highlighted by such studies. In general, findings from the literature suggest that the newer generation AEDs (including vigabatrin, felbamate, gabapentin, lamotrigine, tiagabine, topiramate, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, zonisamide, pregabalin, rufinamide, and lacosamide) enjoy both improved tolerability and safety compared with older agents such as phenobarbital, phenytoin, carbamazepine, and valproate. This is partially supported by some of the findings of the QSS and the TTA Committee of the American Academy of Neurology (AAN), whose review of four AEDs (gabapentin, lamotrigine, topiramate, and tiagabine) is discussed. Briefly, when compared with carbamazepine, lamotrigine was better tolerated; topiramate adverse events (AEs) were fairly comparable to carbamazepine and valproate; and tiagabine compared with placebo was associated with a higher discontinuation rate due to AEs. The findings of the SANAD trial are also presented; when administered to patients with partial epilepsy, carbamazepine was most likely to fail due to AEs, and lamotrigine and gabapentin were least likely to fail due to AEs. When administered to patients with idiopathic generalized epilepsy, topiramate was most frequently associated with AE-related discontinuation, followed by valproate; and while valproate was the most efficacious drug in this arm of the study, lamotrigine was more tolerable. What makes the SANAD study valuable and somewhat unique is its head-to-head comparison of one drug with another. Such comparative trials are overall lacking for new AEDs, although some conclusions can be drawn from the available data. In the end, however, AED selection must be based on individual patient and drug characteristics.