From clinical trials of antiepileptic drugs to treatment

Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, Who's the Fairest Third Generation Anti-Seizure Medication of All?

A Real-World Comparison Among Third-Generation Antiseizure Medications: Results From the COMPARE Study Roberti R, Di Gennaro G, Anzellotti F, Arnaldi D, Belcastro V, Beretta S, Boero G, Bonanni P, Canafoglia L, D’Aniello A, Dainese F, De Caro C, Di Gennaro G, Di Giacomo R, DiFrancesco JC, Dono F, Falcicchio G, Ferlazzo E, Foschi N, Franciotta S, Gambardella A, Giordano A, Iannone LF, Labate A, La Neve A, Lattanzi S, Leggio U, Liguori C, Maschio M, Nilo A, Operto FF, Pascarella A, Pauletto G, Renna R, Strigaro G; COMPARE Study Group; Russo E. Epilepsia . 2023. doi:10.1111/epi.17843 . PMID: 38052481 Objective: There are few comparative data on the third-generation antiseizure medications (ASMs). We aimed to assess and compare the effectiveness of brivaracetam (BRV), eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL), lacosamide (LCM), and perampanel (PER) in people with epilepsy (PWE). Efficacy and tolerability were compared as secondary objectives. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective study collected data from 22 Italian neurology/epilepsy centers. All adult PWE who started add-on treatment with one of the studied ASMs between January 2018 and October 2021 were included. Retention rate was established as effectiveness measure and described using Kaplan-Meier curves and the best fitting survival model. The responder status and the occurrence of adverse events (AEs) were used to evaluate efficacy and safety, respectively. The odds of AEs and drug efficacy were estimated by 2 multilevel logistic models. Results: A total of 960 patients (52.92% females, median age = 43 years) met the inclusion criteria. They mainly suffered from structural epilepsy (52.29%) with monthly (46.2%) focal seizures (69.58%). Compared with LCM, all the studied ASMs had a higher dropout risk, statistically significant in the BRV levetiracetam (LEV)-naïve (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.17-3.29) and PER groups (HR = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.06-2.55). Women were at higher risk of discontinuing ESL (HR = 5.33, 95% CI = 1.71-16.61), as well as PER-treated patients with unknown epilepsy etiology versus those with structural etiology (HR = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.05-2.88). BRV with prior LEV therapy showed lower odds of efficacy (odds ratio [OR] = .08, 95% CI = .01-.48) versus LCM, whereas a higher efficacy was observed in women treated with BRV and LEV-naïve (OR = 10.32, 95% CI = 1.55-68.78) versus men. PER (OR = 6.93, 95% CI = 3.32-14.44) and BRV in LEV-naïve patients (OR = 6.80, 95% CI = 2.64-17.52) had a higher chance of AEs than LCM. Significance: Comparative evidence from real-world studies may help clinicians to tailor treatments according to patients’ demographic and clinical characteristics.

A real-world comparison among third-generation antiseizure medications: Results from the COMPARE study

OBJECTIVE

There are few comparative data on the third-generation antiseizure medications (ASMs). We aimed to assess and compare the effectiveness of brivaracetam (BRV), eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL), lacosamide (LCM), and perampanel (PER) in people with epilepsy (PWE). Efficacy and tolerability were compared as secondary objectives.

METHODS

This multicenter, retrospective study collected data from 22 Italian neurology/epilepsy centers. All adult PWE who started add-on treatment with one of the studied ASMs between January 2018 and October 2021 were included. Retention rate was established as effectiveness measure and described using Kaplan-Meier curves and the best fitting survival model. The responder status and the occurrence of adverse events (AEs) were used to evaluate efficacy and safety, respectively. The odds of AEs and drug efficacy were estimated by two multilevel logistic models.

RESULTS

A total of 960 patients (52.92% females, median age = 43 years) met the inclusion criteria. They mainly suffered from structural epilepsy (52.29%) with monthly (46.2%) focal seizures (69.58%). Compared with LCM, all the studied ASMs had a higher dropout risk, statistically significant in the BRV levetiracetam (LEV)-naïve (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.17-3.29) and PER groups (HR = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.06-2.55). Women were at higher risk of discontinuing ESL (HR = 5.33, 95% CI = 1.71-16.61), as well as PER-treated patients with unknown epilepsy etiology versus those with structural etiology (HR = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.05-2.88). BRV with prior LEV therapy showed lower odds of efficacy (odds ratio [OR] = .08, 95% CI = .01-.48) versus LCM, whereas a higher efficacy was observed in women treated with BRV and LEV-naïve (OR = 10.32, 95% CI = 1.55-68.78) versus men. PER (OR = 6.93, 95% CI = 3.32-14.44) and BRV in LEV-naïve patients (OR = 6.80, 95% CI = 2.64-17.52) had a higher chance of AEs than LCM.

SIGNIFICANCE

Comparative evidence from real-world studies may help clinicians to tailor treatments according to patients' demographic and clinical characteristics.

The Contribution of Microglia and Brain-Infiltrating Macrophages to the Pathogenesis of Neuroinflammatory and Neurodegenerative Diseases during TMEV Infection of the Central Nervous System

The infection of the central nervous system (CNS) with neurotropic viruses induces neuroinflammation and is associated with the development of neuroinflammatory and neurodegenerative diseases, including multiple sclerosis and epilepsy. The activation of the innate and adaptive immune response, including microglial, macrophages, and T and B cells, while required for efficient viral control within the CNS, is also associated with neuropathology. Under healthy conditions, resident microglia play a pivotal role in maintaining CNS homeostasis. However, during pathological events, such as CNS viral infection, microglia become reactive, and immune cells from the periphery infiltrate into the brain, disrupting CNS homeostasis and contributing to disease development. Theiler's murine encephalomyelitis virus (TMEV), a neurotropic picornavirus, is used in two distinct mouse models: TMEV-induced demyelination disease (TMEV-IDD) and TMEV-induced seizures, representing mouse models of multiple sclerosis and epilepsy, respectively. These murine models have contributed substantially to our understanding of the pathophysiology of MS and seizures/epilepsy following viral infection, serving as critical tools for identifying pharmacological targetable pathways to modulate disease development. This review aims to discuss the host-pathogen interaction during a neurotropic picornavirus infection and to shed light on our current understanding of the multifaceted roles played by microglia and macrophages in the context of these two complexes viral-induced disease.

Initial monotherapy with eslicarbazepine acetate for the management of adult patients with focal epilepsy in clinical practice: a meta-analysis of observational studies

AIM OF THE STUDY

To assess the effectiveness, overall tolerability of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) as an initial or early monotherapy treatment of adult patients with focal epilepsy under real-world practice conditions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We focused on real-world longitudinal studies that included or separately reported the results of at least one of the efficacy outcomes of interest. A DerSimonian-Laird random effects model was used with the presentation of the 95% confidence intervals of the estimate.

RESULTS

5 studies met our selection criteria and were included in the quantitative synthesis. All studies were observational and uncontrolled studies, and all but one were retrospective studies. The pooled proportion of patients who were seizure-free for the entire study period was 64.6% (95% CI, 45.7 to 79.8) at month 6 and 56.6% (95% CI, 50.2 to 62.8) at month 12. Pooled retention rates were 95.0% (95% CI, 90.3 to 97.5) at 6 months and 83.6% (95% CI, 73.9 to 90.1) at 12 months. The pooled proportion of patients who reported at least one adverse event was 27.2% (95% CI, 21.7 to 33.6), and the pooled proportion of patients who discontinued ESL due to adverse events was 8.9% (95% CI 6.2 to 12.6).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that initial or early monotherapy with ESL is effective and well-tolerated for the management of adult patients with focal epilepsy in clinical practice, with results that are at least similar to those reported in the pivotal randomized clinical trial of ESL monotherapy. No new safety signals with ESL have been identified in this systematic review.

Patient-reported outcomes via electronic health record portal versus telephone: a pragmatic randomized pilot trial of anxiety or depression symptoms in epilepsy

Objective

To close gaps between research and clinical practice, tools are needed for efficient pragmatic trial recruitment and patient-reported outcome collection. The objective was to assess feasibility and process measures for patient-reported outcome collection in a randomized trial comparing electronic health record (EHR) patient portal questionnaires to telephone interview among adults with epilepsy and anxiety or depression symptoms.

Materials and Methods

Recruitment for the randomized trial began at an epilepsy clinic visit, with EHR-embedded validated anxiety and depression instruments, followed by automated EHR-based research screening consent and eligibility assessment. Fully eligible individuals later completed telephone consent, enrollment, and randomization. Participants were randomized 1:1 to EHR portal versus telephone outcome assessment, and patient-reported and process outcomes were collected at 3 and 6 months, with primary outcome 6-month retention in EHR arm (feasibility target: ≥11 participants retained).

Results

Participants (N = 30) were 60% women, 77% White/non-Hispanic, with mean age 42.5 years. Among 15 individuals randomized to EHR portal, 10 (67%, CI 41.7%-84.8%) met the 6-month retention endpoint, versus 100% (CI 79.6%-100%) in the telephone group (P = 0.04). EHR outcome collection at 6 months required 11.8 min less research staff time per participant than telephone (5.9, CI 3.3-7.7 vs 17.7, CI 14.1-20.2). Subsequent telephone contact after unsuccessful EHR attempts enabled near complete data collection and still saved staff time.

Discussion

In this randomized study, EHR portal outcome assessment did not meet the retention feasibility target, but EHR method saved research staff time compared to telephone.

Conclusion

While EHR portal outcome assessment was not feasible, hybrid EHR/telephone method was feasible and saved staff time.

Indirect treatment comparison of cenobamate to other ASMs for the treatment of uncontrolled focal seizures

OBJECTIVE

The efficacy and safety of cenobamate relative to other antiseizure medications (ASMs) has not been evaluated. An indirect treatment comparison (network meta-analysis) was performed to determine if adjunctive cenobamate increases the odds ratio (OR) for ≥50% responder rate or for withdrawals due to treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) leading to ASM discontinuation versus adjunctive therapy with other ASMs.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (maintenance phase ≥ 12 weeks) assessing adjunctive ASMs in adults with uncontrolled focal seizures. Cenobamate was compared to a group of seven other ASMs, and to subgroups of branded (brivaracetam, eslicarbazepine acetate, lacosamide, and perampanel) and older (lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and topiramate) ASMs at FDA-recommended daily maintenance doses (FDA-RDMD), at all doses, and at maximum and minimum daily doses. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies were eligible for analysis. The placebo-adjusted ≥ 50% responder rate for FDA-RDMD of cenobamate was superior (OR 4.200; 95% CI 2.279, 7.742) to FDA-RDMD of all seven assessed (OR 2.202 95% CI 1.915, 2.532; p = 0.044) and branded ASMs (OR 2.148; 95% CI 1.849, 2.494; p = 0.037). There was no significant difference for ≥50% responder rate between FDA-RDMD of cenobamate and FDA-RDMD of older ASMs (OR 2.617; 95% CI 1.767, 3.878; p = 0.202). No significant differences were identified for ≥50% responder rate when comparing all doses and maximum/minimum doses of cenobamate to all seven, branded, and older ASMs. Cenobamate demonstrated comparable TEAE withdrawal rates to all seven ASMs, branded ASMs, and older ASMs across each of the four dose ranges (all p > 0.05).

SIGNIFICANCE

Patients receiving FDA-RDMD of cenobamate were more likely to have ≥50% seizure reduction compared with FDA-RDMD of the seven assessed ASMs and branded ASMs, without an increase in treatment discontinuation due to TEAEs.

Lamotrigine versus levetiracetam or zonisamide for focal epilepsy and valproate versus levetiracetam for generalised and unclassified epilepsy: two SANAD II non-inferiority RCTs

BACKGROUND

Levetiracetam (Keppra^®, UCB Pharma Ltd, Slough, UK) and zonisamide (Zonegran^®, Eisai Co. Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) are licensed as monotherapy for focal epilepsy, and levetiracetam is increasingly used as a first-line treatment for generalised epilepsy, particularly for women of childbearing age. However, there is uncertainty as to whether or not they should be recommended as first-line treatments owing to a lack of evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lamotrigine (Lamictal^®, GlaxoSmithKline plc, Brentford, UK) (standard treatment) with levetiracetam and zonisamide (new treatments) for focal epilepsy, and to compare valproate (Epilim^®, Sanofi SA, Paris, France) (standard treatment) with levetiracetam (new treatment) for generalised and unclassified epilepsy.

DESIGN

Two pragmatic randomised unblinded non-inferiority trials run in parallel.

SETTING

Outpatient services in NHS hospitals throughout the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Those aged ≥ 5 years with two or more spontaneous seizures that require anti-seizure medication.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants with focal epilepsy were randomised to receive lamotrigine, levetiracetam or zonisamide. Participants with generalised or unclassifiable epilepsy were randomised to receive valproate or levetiracetam. The randomisation method was minimisation using a web-based program.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was time to 12-month remission from seizures. For this outcome, and all other time-to-event outcomes, we report hazard ratios for the standard treatment compared with the new treatment. For the focal epilepsy trial, the non-inferiority limit (lamotrigine vs. new treatments) was 1.329. For the generalised and unclassified epilepsy trial, the non-inferiority limit (valproate vs. new treatments) was 1.314. Secondary outcomes included time to treatment failure, time to first seizure, time to 24-month remission, adverse reactions, quality of life and cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

Focal epilepsy. A total of 990 participants were recruited, of whom 330 were randomised to receive lamotrigine, 332 were randomised to receive levetiracetam and 328 were randomised to receive zonisamide. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority (hazard ratio 1.329) in the primary intention-to-treat analysis of time to 12-month remission (hazard ratio vs. lamotrigine 1.18, 97.5% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.47), but zonisamide did meet the criteria (hazard ratio vs. lamotrigine 1.03, 97.5% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.28). In the per-protocol analysis, lamotrigine was superior to both levetiracetam (hazard ratio 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.66) and zonisamide (hazard ratio 1.37, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.73). For time to treatment failure, lamotrigine was superior to levetiracetam (hazard ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 0.77) and zonisamide (hazard ratio 0.46, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.60). Adverse reactions were reported by 33% of participants starting lamotrigine, 44% starting levetiracetam and 45% starting zonisamide. In the economic analysis, both levetiracetam and zonisamide were more costly and less effective than lamotrigine and were therefore dominated. Generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy. Of 520 patients recruited, 260 were randomised to receive valproate and 260 were randomised to receive to levetiracetam. A total of 397 patients had generalised epilepsy and 123 had unclassified epilepsy. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the primary intention-to-treat analysis of time to 12-month remission (hazard ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 1.47; non-inferiority margin 1.314). In the per-protocol analysis of time to 12-month remission, valproate was superior to levetiracetam (hazard ratio 1.68, 95% confidence interval 1.30 to 2.15). Valproate was superior to levetiracetam for time to treatment failure (hazard ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.83). Adverse reactions were reported by 37.4% of participants receiving valproate and 41.5% of those receiving levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was both more costly (incremental cost of £104, 95% central range -£587 to £1234) and less effective (incremental quality-adjusted life-year of -0.035, 95% central range -0.137 to 0.032) than valproate, and was therefore dominated. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, levetiracetam was associated with a probability of 0.17 of being cost-effective.

LIMITATIONS

The SANAD II trial was unblinded, which could have biased results by influencing decisions about dosing, treatment failure and the attribution of adverse reactions.

FUTURE WORK

SANAD II data could now be included in an individual participant meta-analysis of similar trials, and future similar trials are required to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of other new treatments, including lacosamide and perampanel.

CONCLUSIONS

Focal epilepsy - The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments in focal epilepsy. Generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy - The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam as a first-line treatment for newly diagnosed generalised epilepsy. For women of childbearing potential, these results inform discussions about the benefit (lower teratogenicity) and harm (worse seizure outcomes and higher treatment failure rate) of levetiracetam compared with valproate.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN30294119 and EudraCT 2012-001884-64.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 75. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

DBS of Thalamic Centromedian Nucleus for Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome (ESTEL Trial)

OBJECTIVE

Prior uncontrolled studies have reported seizure reductions following deep brain stimulation (DBS) in patients with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS), but evidence from randomized controlled studies is lacking. We aimed to formally assess the efficacy and safety of DBS to the centromedian thalamic nucleus (CM) for the treatment of LGS.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, double-blind, randomized study of continuous, cycling stimulation of CM-DBS, in patients with LGS. Following pre- and post-implantation periods, half received 3 months of stimulation (blinded phase), then all received 3 months of stimulation (unblinded phase). The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with ≥50% reduction in diary-recorded seizures in stimulated versus control participants, measured at the end of the blinded phase. A secondary outcome was the proportion of participants with a ≥50% reduction in electrographic seizures on 24-hour ambulatory electroencephalography (EEG) at the end of the blinded phase.

RESULTS

Between November 2017 and December 2019, 20 young adults with LGS (17-37 years;13 women) underwent bilateral CM-DBS at a single center in Australia, with 19 randomized (treatment, n = 10 and control, n = 9). Fifty percent of the stimulation group achieved ≥50% seizure reduction, compared with 22% of controls (odds ratio [OR] = 3.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.44-21.45, p = 0.25). For electrographic seizures, 59% of the stimulation group had ≥50% reduction at the end of the blinded phase, compared with none of the controls (OR= 23.25, 95% CI = 1.0-538.4, p = 0.05). Across all patients, median seizure reduction (baseline vs study exit) was 46.7% (interquartile range [IQR] = 28-67%) for diary-recorded seizures and 53.8% (IQR = 27-73%) for electrographic seizures.

INTERPRETATION

CM-DBS in patients with LGS reduced electrographic rather than diary-recorded seizures, after 3 months of stimulation. Fifty percent of all participants had diary-recorded seizures reduced by half at the study exit, providing supporting evidence of the treatment effect. ANN NEUROL 2021.

Fenfluramine significantly reduces day-to-day seizure burden by increasing number of seizure-free days and time between seizures in patients with Dravet syndrome: A time-to-event analysis

Objective

The number, unpredictability, and severity of seizures experienced by patients with Dravet syndrome (DS) negatively impact quality of life (QOL) for patients, caregivers, and families. Metrics are needed to assess whether patients with residual seizures have moved meaningfully toward seizure freedom after treatment with new antiseizure medications.

Methods

We evaluated the time required postrandomization for each patient to experience the same number of seizures experienced during baseline (i.e., time‐to‐nth seizure), using a post hoc time‐to‐event (TTE) analysis of data from two Phase 3 placebo‐controlled trials of adjunctive fenfluramine for DS (Study 1, N = 119; Study 2, N = 87). Patients aged 2–19 years were randomized to placebo or adjunctive fenfluramine (Study 1: .7 mg/kg/day or .2 mg/kg/day; Study 2: .4 mg/kg/day with stiripentol). Data were analyzed by Kaplan–Meier TTE curves and waterfall plots.

Results

The proportion of patients who never reached baseline seizure frequency was greater with fenfluramine than with placebo (Study 1: fenfluramine .7 mg/kg/day, 60%; fenfluramine .2 mg/kg/day, 31%; placebo, 13%; Study 2: fenfluramine .4 mg/kg/day, 58%; placebo, 2%). Median time‐to‐nth seizure was longer after fenfluramine than after placebo (Study 1: fenfluramine .7 mg/kg/day, 13 weeks; .2 mg/kg/day, 10 weeks; placebo, 7 weeks; Study 2: fenfluramine .4 mg/kg/day, 13 weeks; placebo, 5 weeks; p < .001). Longest duration of convulsive seizure‐free days was increased in active groups versus the placebo group (Study 1: fenfluramine .7 and .2 mg/kg/day, 25.0 and 15.0 days; placebo, 9.5 days [p = .0001; p = .0352]; Study 2: fenfluramine .4 mg/kg/day, 22.0 days; placebo, 13.0 days [p = .004]). The most common adverse events included decreased appetite, pyrexia, upper respiratory tract infection, diarrhea, and fatigue.

Significance

These data demonstrate that fenfluramine can significantly reduce day‐to‐day seizure burden in patients with DS, providing prolonged periods of convulsive seizure‐free days, which may help reduce the physical and emotional disease toll while improving health‐related QOL for patients and caregivers.

Post hoc analysis of a phase 3, multicenter, open-label study of cenobamate for treatment of uncontrolled focal seizures: Effects of dose adjustments of concomitant antiseizure medications

Objective

To report post hoc results on how adjustments to baseline antiseizure medications (ASMs) in a subset of study sites (10 US sites) from a long‐term, open‐label phase 3 study of adjunctive cenobamate affected tolerability, efficacy, and retention.

Methods

Patients with uncontrolled focal seizures taking stable doses of one to three ASMs were administered increasing doses of cenobamate (12.5, 25, 50, 100, 150, 200 mg/day) over 12 weeks at 2‐week intervals (target dose = 200 mg/day). Further increases to 400 mg/day by 50 mg/day biweekly increments were allowed during maintenance phase. Dose adjustments of cenobamate and concomitant ASMs were allowed. Data were assessed until last visit, at data cut‐off, on or after September 1, 2019.

Results

A total of 240 patients meeting eligibility criteria were assessed (median [max] exposure 30.2 [43.0] months), with 177 patients continuing cenobamate at data cut‐off. Most common baseline concomitant ASMs were lacosamide, levetiracetam, lamotrigine, zonisamide, and clobazam. For most baseline concomitant ASMs, ~70% of patients taking that ASM were continuing cenobamate at data cut‐off. Patients continuing cenobamate had greater mean ASM dose reductions and percent dose changes from baseline vs those who discontinued. Of patients continuing cenobamate, 24.6% discontinued one or more concomitant ASMs completely. Dose decreases for all concomitant ASMs generally occurred during titration or early maintenance phases and were mostly due to central nervous system (CNS)–related adverse events such as somnolence, dizziness, unsteady gait, and fatigue. Responder rates from ≥50% through 100% for patients continuing cenobamate were generally similar regardless of concomitant ASMs (of those most commonly taken), with ~81% being ≥50% responders and ~12% achieving 100% seizure reduction in the maintenance phase, which lasted up to 40.2 (median = 29.5) months.

Significance

Concomitant ASM dose reductions were associated with more patients remaining on cenobamate. This is likely due to efficacy and improved tolerability, with overall reduced concomitant drug burden in patients with uncontrolled seizures despite taking one to three baseline concomitant ASMs.

Pharmacokinetic variability of eslicarbazepine in real clinical practice

INTRODUCTION

Eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) is a sodium channel blocker indicated for partial-onset seizures with or without secondary generalization, at a single daily dose. There are very few publications on the levels of ESL metabolites in real clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the serum levels of licarbazepine (main metabolite of ESL) in patients with refractory epilepsy in real clinical practice. To evaluate the influence of age, sex, and polytherapy on levels and adverse effects.

METHODS

This study involved a retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with epilepsy treated with ESL for whom plasma levels of licarbazepine were available, measured by spectrophotometry.

RESULTS

Sixty-four patients were included. One patient had licarbazepine levels of 0 (admitted not taking the drug) was not analyzed. Mean licarbazepine levels of 7.66 µg/mL (400 mg/day dose), 16.56 µg/mL (800-mg dose), and 20.80 µg/mL (1200 mg) were significantly different. There was a significant correlation between daily dose and serum levels (p < 0.05) and between the concentration/dose ratio and lower to higher doses (p < 0.05). Pharmacokinetic variability (coefficient of variation for the concentration/dose ratio) was 33.2%. We found a decrease in the concentration/dose ratio in the 1200 mg/day dose, compared to lower doses. We did not find differences by sex or intake of other antiepileptic inducers or metabolic inhibitors. Fifteen patients (23.8%) had mild nonsymptomatic hyponatremia.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that it is not necessary to routinely determine licarbazepine levels. In specific cases, licarbazepine levels can be useful to assess adherence to treatment and for personalized dose adjustment.

CXCL1-CXCR1/2 signaling is induced in human temporal lobe epilepsy and contributes to seizures in a murine model of acquired epilepsy

CXCL1, a functional murine orthologue of the human chemokine CXCL8 (IL-8), and its CXCR1 and CXCR2 receptors were investigated in a murine model of acquired epilepsy developing following status epilepticus (SE) induced by intra-amygdala kainate. CXCL8 and its receptors were also studied in human temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE). The functional involvement of the chemokine in seizure generation and neuronal cell loss was assessed in mice using reparixin (formerly referred to as repertaxin), a non-competitive allosteric inhibitor of CXCR1/2 receptors. We found a significant increase in hippocampal CXCL1 level within 24 h of SE onset that lasted for at least 1 week. No changes were measured in blood. In analogy with human TLE, immunohistochemistry in epileptic mice showed that CXCL1 and its two receptors were increased in hippocampal neuronal cells. Additional expression of these molecules was found in glia in human TLE. Mice were treated with reparixin or vehicle during SE and for additional 6 days thereafter, using subcutaneous osmotic minipumps. Drug-treated mice showed a faster SE decay, a reduced incidence of acute symptomatic seizures during 48 h post-SE, and a delayed time to spontaneous seizures onset compared to vehicle controls. Upon reparixin discontinuation, mice developed spontaneous seizures similar to vehicle mice, as shown by EEG monitoring at 14 days and 2.5 months post-SE. In the same epileptic mice, reparixin reduced neuronal cell loss in the hippocampus vs vehicle-injected mice, as assessed by Nissl staining at completion of EEG monitoring. Reparixin administration for 2 weeks in mice with established chronic seizures, reduced by 2-fold on average seizure number vs pre-treatment baseline, and this effect was reversible upon drug discontinuation. No significant changes in seizure number were measured in vehicle-injected epileptic mice that were EEG monitored in parallel. Data show that CXCL1-IL-8 signaling is activated in experimental and human epilepsy and contributes to acute and chronic seizures in mice, therefore representing a potential new target to attain anti-ictogenic effects.

Microglia proliferation plays distinct roles in acquired epilepsy depending on disease stages

OBJECTIVE

Microgliosis occurs in animal models of acquired epilepsy and in patients. It includes cell proliferation that is associated with seizure frequency and decreased neuronal cells in human epilepsy. The role of microglia proliferation in the development of acquired epilepsy is unknown; thus, we examined its contribution to spontaneous seizure, neurodegeneration, and cognitive deficits in different disease phases.

METHODS

We used a model of acquired epilepsy triggered by intra-amygdala kainic acid in C57BL6N adult male mice. Mice were electroencephalographically (EEG) monitored (24/7) during status epilepticus and in early and chronic disease. Microglia proliferation was blocked by GW2580, a selective CSF1 receptor inhibitor, supplemented in the diet for 21 days from status epilepticus onset. Then, mice were returned to placebo diet until experiment completion. Control mice were exposed to status epilepticus and fed with placebo diet. Experimental mice were tested in the novel object recognition test (NORT) and in Barnes maze, and compared to control and sham mice. At the end of the behavioral test, mice were killed for brain histopathological analysis. Additionally, seizure baseline was monitored in chronic epileptic mice, then mice were fed for 14 days with GW2580 or placebo diet under 24/7 EEG recording.

RESULTS

GW2580 prevented microglia proliferation in mice undergoing epilepsy, whereas it did not affect microglia or basal excitatory neurotransmission in the hippocampus of naive mice. Mice with occluded microglia proliferation during early disease development underwent status epilepticus and subsequent epilepsy similar to placebo diet mice, and were similarly impaired in NORT, with improvement in Barnes maze. GW2580-treated mice displayed neuroprotection in the hippocampus. In contrast, blockade of microglia proliferation in chronic epileptic mice resulted in spontaneous seizure reduction versus placebo mice.

SIGNIFICANCE

Microglia proliferation during early disease contributes to neurodegeneration, whereas in late chronic disease it contributes to seizures. Timely pharmacological interference with microglia proliferation may offer a potential target for improving disease outcomes.

The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam, zonisamide, or lamotrigine for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Levetiracetam and zonisamide are licensed as monotherapy for patients with focal epilepsy, but there is uncertainty as to whether they should be recommended as first-line treatments because of insufficient evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. We aimed to assess the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam and zonisamide compared with lamotrigine in people with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy.

METHODS

This randomised, open-label, controlled trial compared levetiracetam and zonisamide with lamotrigine as first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked focal seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1:1) using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factor to receive lamotrigine, levetiracetam, or zonisamide. Participants and investigators were not masked and were aware of treatment allocation. SANAD II was designed to assess non-inferiority of both levetiracetam and zonisamide to lamotrigine for the primary outcome of time to 12-month remission. Anti-seizure medications were taken orally and for participants aged 12 years or older the initial advised maintenance doses were lamotrigine 50 mg (morning) and 100 mg (evening), levetiracetam 500 mg twice per day, and zonisamide 100 mg twice per day. For children aged between 5 and 12 years the initial daily maintenance doses advised were lamotrigine 1·5 mg/kg twice per day, levetiracetam 20 mg/kg twice per day, and zonisamide 2·5 mg/kg twice per day. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. The per-protocol (PP) analysis excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analysis included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·329, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on lamotrigine. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64).

FINDINGS

990 participants were recruited between May 2, 2013, and June 20, 2017, and followed up for a further 2 years. Patients were randomly assigned to receive lamotrigine (n=330), levetiracetam (n=332), or zonisamide (n=328). The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 324 participants randomly assigned to lamotrigine, 320 participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam, and 315 participants randomly assigned to zonisamide. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission versus lamotrigine (HR 1·18; 97·5% CI 0·95-1·47) but zonisamide did meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis versus lamotrigine (1·03; 0·83-1·28). The PP analysis showed that 12-month remission was superior with lamotrigine than both levetiracetam (HR 1·32 [97·5% CI 1·05 to 1·66]) and zonisamide (HR 1·37 [1·08-1·73]). There were 37 deaths during the trial. Adverse reactions were reported by 108 (33%) participants who started lamotrigine, 144 (44%) participants who started levetiracetam, and 146 (45%) participants who started zonisamide. Lamotrigine was superior in the cost-utility analysis, with a higher net health benefit of 1·403 QALYs (97·5% central range 1·319-1·458) compared with 1·222 (1·110-1·283) for levetiracetam and 1·232 (1·112, 1·307) for zonisamide at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and QALYs.

INTERPRETATION

These findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments for patients with focal epilepsy. Lamotrigine should remain a first-line treatment for patients with focal epilepsy and should be the standard treatment in future trials.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Fenfluramine responder analyses and numbers needed to treat: Translating epilepsy trial data into clinical practice

OBJECTIVE

Clinical trials typically report antiepileptic drug efficacy by evaluating reduction in monthly convulsive seizure frequency (MCSF) through group response (active versus placebo). Although useful for regulatory purposes, population statistics do not easily translate into clinical practice, where treatment decisions are made on an individual-patient basis. Responder analyses help bridge this gap by showing proportions of patients who achieved various MCSF improvement levels. Deriving numbers needed to treat (NNTs) to achieve clinically desirable response levels can further inform individual decision-making. We calculated the NNT with fenfluramine to achieve "clinically meaningful" (≥50%) or "profound" (≥75%) MCSF reductions in patients with Dravet syndrome (DS).

METHODS

NNT to achieve ≥50% or ≥75% MCSF reduction was assessed using longitudinal data from two phase 3 studies for adjunctive fenfluramine in DS patients aged 2-18 years. NNT was calculated: 1/((Experimental-Responder Rate)-(Control-Responder Rate)).

RESULTS

In Study 1, NNTs to achieve ≥50% and ≥75% MCSF reduction were 1.8 and 2.1 at 0.7 mg/kg/day fenfluramine. In Study 2, these NNTs were 2.0 and 3.1, respectively. These results were seen as early as Weeks 6-7 and were sustained through Weeks 14-15.

INTERPRETATION

For every two to three patients with DS treated with fenfluramine in these trials, one patient achieved ≥50% or ≥75% MCSF reduction, respectively, compared with placebo (large treatment effect size; Cohen's d≈0.8). Responder analyses and NNTs can aid in clinical decision-making by offering clinically important information that is complementary to the population mean data on the chance of an individual patient achieving meaningful levels of MCSF improvement. (NCT02682927/NCT02826863, NCT02926898).

The Pharmacology and Clinical Efficacy of Antiseizure Medications: From Bromide Salts to Cenobamate and Beyond

Epilepsy is one of the most common and disabling chronic neurological disorders. Antiseizure medications (ASMs), previously referred to as anticonvulsant or antiepileptic drugs, are the mainstay of symptomatic epilepsy treatment. Epilepsy is a multifaceted complex disease and so is its treatment. Currently, about 30 ASMs are available for epilepsy therapy. Furthermore, several ASMs are approved therapies in nonepileptic conditions, including neuropathic pain, migraine, bipolar disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder. Because of this wide spectrum of therapeutic activity, ASMs are among the most often prescribed centrally active agents. Most ASMs act by modulation of voltage-gated ion channels; by enhancement of gamma aminobutyric acid-mediated inhibition; through interactions with elements of the synaptic release machinery; by blockade of ionotropic glutamate receptors; or by combinations of these mechanisms. Because of differences in their mechanisms of action, most ASMs do not suppress all types of seizures, so appropriate treatment choices are important. The goal of epilepsy therapy is the complete elimination of seizures; however, this is not achievable in about one-third of patients. Both in vivo and in vitro models of seizures and epilepsy are used to discover ASMs that are more effective in patients with continued drug-resistant seizures. Furthermore, therapies that are specific to epilepsy etiology are being developed. Currently, ~ 30 new compounds with diverse antiseizure mechanisms are in the preclinical or clinical drug development pipeline. Moreover, therapies with potential antiepileptogenic or disease-modifying effects are in preclinical and clinical development. Overall, the world of epilepsy therapy development is changing and evolving in many exciting and important ways. However, while new epilepsy therapies are developed, knowledge of the pharmacokinetics, antiseizure efficacy and spectrum, and adverse effect profiles of currently used ASMs is an essential component of treating epilepsy successfully and maintaining a high quality of life for every patient, particularly those receiving polypharmacy for drug-resistant seizures.

Carbamazepine adversely altered the pituitary-testicular axis with resultant reproductive dysfunctions than levetiracetam or carbamazepine-levetiracetam adjuvant treatment in male Wistar rat

This study investigated the on-toward reactions of individual or adjunctive treatment with carbamazepine (CBZ) and levetiracetam (LEV) on the pituitary-testicular axis in male rats. Twenty-four male Wistar rats were randomised into 4 groups (n = 6) and received daily intraperitoneal (i.p) treatment of normal saline (0.1 ml/day); CBZ (25 mg/kg i.p); LEV (50 mg/kg i.p); or combination of CBZ (12.5 mg/kg) and LEV (25 mg/kg) for 4 weeks. The serum concentration of luteinising hormone (LH), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), and testosterone was determined. Also, the seminal profile and histomorphological status of the testis were determined. Data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. The control and test groups were compared using Student's t test, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and Student-Newman-Keuls post hoc analysis where appropriate, while the results presented as mean ± SEM in graphs or tables. The level of significance was taken at p < .05. The percentage motility, viability, and concentration of FSH decreased significantly in all the treatment groups, while the testis was presented with various forms of histomorphological aberrations. This study concludes that CBZ, and CBZ + LEV adjunctive treatments alter the pituitary-testicular axis with evidence of hormonal deregulation and alteration in the reproductive functions' indices, while LEV treatment remains the safest.

Patterns of anticonvulsant use and adverse drug events in older adults

PURPOSE

To examine indications for, duration of use, and rate of adverse drug events (ADE) attributable to anticonvulsant initiation, as adjudicated by expert review of electronic health records (EHR) of older adults.

METHODS

We identified a cohort of community dwelling Medicare beneficiaries with linked EHR (aged 65+, continuously enrolled with a large health system/until death between 2012 and 2014, n = 20 945) and drew a stratified EHR review sample (n = 1534). An expert reviewed all records to adjudicate anticonvulsant use, years of use, indication for use, and evidence of ADEs attributable to anticonvulsant initiation. After excluding patients with insufficient EHR data (n = 37; 2%), we reconstructed the cohort using inverse probability weights to resemble the original cohort of eligible beneficiaries (n = 20 380). Among incident users of a single anticonvulsant, we estimated the rate of ADEs and described the type and severity of ADEs.

RESULTS

Overall, 12% (n = 2469) of eligible beneficiaries used at least one anticonvulsant in the 2012 to 2014 period (4% [n = 757] incident users, 8% [n = 1712] prevalent users). Incident users were most frequently prescribed gabapentin (n = 461/757, 61%), benzodiazepines (n = 122/757, 16%), and levetiracetam (n = 74/757, 10%); the most common indication was pain relief (n = 214; 28%) followed by epilepsy (n = 53; 7%). Among incident users, the overall ADE rate was 10/100 person-years (95% CI 4-20/100 person-years), of which 29% (n = 28/97) were life threatening (eg, somnolence). Most ADEs among incident monotherapy users were nervous system related (68%, n = 66/97).

CONCLUSION

Many older adult community dwelling traditional Medicare beneficiaries had clinically significant ADEs likely attributable to the initiation of anticonvulsant therapy, which was begun for a range of indications.

Predicted Efficacy of Once-Daily Extended-Release Oxcarbazepine (Oxtellar XR®) Monotherapy in Adults and Children with Partial-Onset Seizures: Exposure-Response Modeling and Simulation

PURPOSE

We conducted exposure-response modeling and simulations to compare the predicted efficacy of extended-release oxcarbazepine (OXC-XR), an oral once-daily (qd) antiepileptic drug, with that of immediate-release (IR) OXC twice-daily (bid) when the agents are used as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy in patients with epilepsy characterized by partial-onset seizures (POS).

METHODS

Modeling assessed percent change from baseline 28-day seizure frequency (PCH) as a function of minimum concentration (Cmin) of monohydroxy derivative (MHD), the clinically relevant metabolite of OXC. For OXC-IR, the model used historical data; values for OXC-XR were derived from observed data. The model was simulated (N=100) to predict PCH at MHD Cmin concentrations achieved with 1200 and 2400 mg/day in adults and children receiving OXC-XR qd or OXC-IR bid. Mean PCH and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were generated and compared.

RESULTS

Predicted efficacy was not different (ie, 95% CI of mean PCH overlapped) for OXC-XR qd vs OXC-IR bid at mean MHD Cmin concentrations achieved with 1200 and 2400 mg/day adjunctive OXC-XR (47.4 and 76.4 µmol/L) and at target MHD Cmin concentrations for OXC-IR monotherapy (59.1 and 112 µmol/L) in adults. Predicted efficacy in adults vs children was not different between formulations. Depending on MHD Cmin, the predicted mean PCH in adults ranged from -51.4% to -73.4% with OXC-XR qd and -53.2% to -78.5% with OXC-IR bid. In children, the predicted mean PCH ranged from -48.4% to -58.1% (OXC-XR qd) and -32.5% to -70.4% (OXC-IR bid).

CONCLUSION

This model-based analysis predicted comparable efficacy for OXC-XR qd vs OXC-IR bid at MHD Cmin concentrations corresponding to 1200 and 2400 mg/day as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy. Based on this analysis, the US Food & Drug Administration approved OXC-XR for use as monotherapy in adults and children ≥6 years of age with POS.

Long-term efficacy and safety of eslicarbazepine acetate monotherapy for adults with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy: An open-label extension study

Objective

To assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) monotherapy during long‐term treatment.

Methods

An open‐label extension (OLE) study was conducted in adults completing a phase 3, randomized, double‐blind, noninferiority trial, during which they had received monotherapy with either once‐daily ESL or twice‐daily controlled‐release carbamazepine (CBZ‐CR) for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. In the OLE study, all patients received ESL (800‐1600 mg/d) for 2 years. Primary efficacy outcome was retention time (from baseline of the OLE study). Secondary efficacy assessments included seizure freedom rate (no seizures during the OLE study) and responder rate (≥50% seizure frequency reduction from baseline of double‐blind trial). Safety assessments included evaluation of treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

Results

Of 206 randomized patients, 96 who received ESL in the double‐blind trial (ESL/ESL) and 88 who received CBZ‐CR in the double‐blind trial (CBZ‐CR/ESL) were treated with ESL monotherapy (89.3% overall). Treatment retention time was similar between groups, with low probability of ESL withdrawal overall (<0.07 at any time). After 24 months, the probability of ESL withdrawal was 0.0638 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.0292‐0.1366) in the ESL/ESL group and 0.0472 (95% CI = 0.0180‐0.1210) in the CBZ‐CR/ESL group. Seizure freedom rates were 90.6% (ESL/ESL) and 80.7% (CBZ‐CR/ESL; P = .0531). Responder rates remained >80% in both groups throughout the study. Incidence of serious TEAEs was similar between groups (7.3% vs 5.7%; 0% vs 1.1% possibly related), as were the incidences of TEAEs considered at least possibly related to treatment (17.7% vs 18.2%) and TEAEs leading to discontinuation (3.1% vs 4.5%). The types of TEAEs were generally consistent with the known safety profile of ESL.

Significance

ESL monotherapy was efficacious and generally well tolerated over the long term, including in patients who transitioned from CBZ‐CR monotherapy. No new safety concerns emerged.

Deciphering the surgical treatment gap for drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE): A literature review

Patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) rarely achieve seizure freedom with medical therapy alone. Despite being safe and effective for select patients with DRE, epilepsy surgery remains heavily underutilized. Multiple studies have indicated that the overall rates of surgery in patients with DRE have stagnated in recent years and may be decreasing, even when hospitalizations for epilepsy-related problems are on the rise. Ultimately, many patients with DRE who might otherwise benefit from surgery continue to have intractable seizures, lacking access to the full spectrum of available treatment options. In this article, we review the various factors accounting for the persistent underutilization of epilepsy surgery and uncover several key themes, including the persistent knowledge gap among physicians in identifying potential surgical candidates, lack of coordinated patient care, patient misconceptions of surgery, and socioeconomic disparities impeding access to care. Moreover, factors such as the cost and complexity of the preoperative evaluation, a lack of federal resource allocation for the research of surgical therapies for epilepsy, and difficulties recruiting patients to clinical trials all contribute to this multifaceted dilemma.

Changing characteristics of epilepsy interventional clinical trials over the last decade: Clinicaltrials.Gov registry

INTRODUCTION

Epilepsy affects about 1% of the world's population (over 50 million). Of these, one-third have refractory or medication-resistant epilepsy. This group of people drives the development and testing of new interventions for epilepsy. To better address the needs of people with epilepsy, the characteristics of clinical trials, as well as the gaps in the population of interest, need to be evaluated.

METHODS

We searched the www.ClinicalTrials.gov database using the keywords "seizure" or "epilepsy" between 9/1/2008-9/1/2018 and filtering for Interventional Clinical trials. The data were categorized by three equal time intervals (tertiles), and evaluated by type of intervention (behavioral, diet, device, drug, other), primary purpose (treatment, diagnosis, prevention, or basic science), gender, age, phase (Phase1 to Phase 4 trials), length and status of the study, enrollment/recruitment/randomization, location, blinding status, assignment group (single/parallel/crossover/factorial/sequential), and funding. We focused on drugs and devices and used a binary logistic regression model to analyze the role of time, length of study, funding, location, randomization, and age.

RESULTS

We found 359 epilepsy clinical trials; of these, 245 (68.2%) clinical trials involved drugs, and 55 (15.3%) were device trials. Over the three tertiles, the percentage of device trials increased while medication trials decreased. Device:drug trial odds ratios increased six times by the third tertile. Also, the results showed that clinical trials for drugs and devices occurred more in adults than children. Industry funding decreased 20% over time. The US contribution to clinical research was stable, but device trials were more likely to occur outside of the US.

CONCLUSION

Drugs constitute the substantial fields of interventional trials in epilepsy but decreased in proportion over the last decade, while the presence of the device trials steadily increased. Device trials focused on treatment and diagnosis of seizures and have been more invested in non-US countries.

Treatment of epilepsy in adults: Expert opinion in South Korea

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to gather the expert opinions of Korean epileptologists regarding the treatment of adult patients with epilepsy.

METHODS

A total of 42 neurologists who specialized in epilepsy were surveyed. They completed an online questionnaire describing multiple patient scenarios. Using these scenarios, they evaluated treatment strategies and gave their preference for specific antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) used to treat genetically mediated generalized epilepsy and focal epilepsy.

RESULTS

Initial AED monotherapy, followed by a second form of alternative monotherapy or an add-on combination therapy, was the preferred treatment strategy. The experts reached consensus for 87.2% of the items. The most commonly selected AEDs for the initial monotherapy for patients with generalized epilepsy were levetiracetam or valproate. For those with focal epilepsy, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, or lamotrigine were the most popular selections. Ethosuximide was the treatment of choice only for patients with generalized epilepsy with prominent absence seizures. Levetiracetam was preferred as an add-on therapy for both generalized and focal epilepsy. For special populations of patients, such as elderly adults or those with comorbid diseases, levetiracetam or lamotrigine was selected as the treatment of choice.

CONCLUSION

Most of the survey results were in accordance with the US expert opinion survey published in 2016. This survey can assist clinicians in making clinical decisions when treating individual adult patients with epilepsy.

Position paper of a German interdisciplinary round table on future designs of trials on adjunctive treatment with antiseizure drugs

PURPOSE

Current trials on adjunctive treatment with antiseizure drugs often do not reveal results which are relevant for clinical practice.

METHOD

Therefore, an interdisciplinary group of German experts discussed a new framework for future antiseizure drug (ASD) trials in adults. This group included members of the executive board of the German Society of Epileptology, of the German institutes for health technology assessment (HTA), of patient organizations and of drug manufacturers. Agreement was reached by consensus decision making after intensive discussion of the findings of a narrative review of the current literature.

RESULTS

The group jointly recommends that ASD trials in adults should be based on and include relevant patient groups, e.g. elderly patients and patients with relevant co-morbidities, should adopt a study duration of at least 12 months, should avoid placebo arms, should include active comparators of clinical relevance, may be designed as open label trials with blinded outcome measurements, should focus on patient relevant outcomes that reflect the impact of benefits and harms of treatments on daily living, such as seizure freedom and seizure severity as well as retention rate, functional outcomes and quality of life as compound measures, and should avoid arbitrary and non-sensitive primary endpoints such as dichotomized changes in seizure frequency.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper focused on improved head-to-head trials on adjunctive treatment with antiseizure drugs. The group welcomes any further work and discussion to enhance future studies which can be applied to the entire spectrum of potentially meaningful study populations and outcomes.

Understanding the challenge of comparative effectiveness research in focal epilepsy: A review of network meta-analyses and real-world evidence on antiepileptic drugs

OBJECTIVE

Head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for assessing comparative treatment effects. In the absence of direct comparisons between all possible antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), however, clinical decision-making in focal (partial onset) epilepsy relies on alternative evidence borne from indirect comparisons including network meta-analyses (NMAs) and from real-world evidence (RWE) studies. We review NMAs and observational RWE studies comparing AEDs in the adjunctive setting to compare the robustness of these methods and to formulate recommendations for future evidence development.

METHODS

A literature review identified NMAs and RWE studies comparing AEDs for the adjunctive treatment of focal seizures published between January 2008 and October 2018. NMAs were evaluated for robustness using a framework based on guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit and the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. RWE studies were evaluated using the GRACE checklist.

RESULTS

From a total of 1993 records, 11 NMAs and six RWE studies were eligible. Key limitations identified in the NMAs include nonsystematic selection of RCTs, unexplored heterogeneity between included RCTs in terms of study and patient characteristics, and selection of AEDs and AED doses or dosing strategies that are not reflective of clinical practice. The main limitations of RWE studies concern sample size, design, and analysis methods. Approximately 90% of comparisons between individual AEDs were nonsignificant in the NMAs. None of the RWE studies adjusted for baseline differences between comparator groups; therefore, they lack the validity to make comparative conclusions.

SIGNIFICANCE

Current NMAs and RWE studies provide only nominal comparative evidence for AED treatments in focal epilepsy, and should be used with caution for decision-making due to their methodological limitations. To overcome these hurdles, adherence to methodological guidelines and concerted efforts to collect relevant outcome data in the real world are needed.

Evaluation of Fear in Idiopathic Epilepsy Using Population-Based Survey and Bhalla-Gharagozli Fear in Epilepsy Questionnaire (BG-FEQ)

INTRODUCTION

The primary objective of this study was to evaluate fear related to epilepsy and its treatment among those with idiopathic epilepsy. Our secondary objective was to estimate the psychometric properties of a brief Bhalla-Gharagozli Fear in epilepsy Questionnaire (BG-FEQ).

METHODS

We conducted patient-finding exercise in our study areas through various means to obtain subjects with idiopathic epilepsy. We carefully examined each patient through a detailed case-history examination. Following that, we evaluated fear related to epilepsy by using Bhalla-Gharagozli Fear in Epilepsy Questionnaire (BG-FEQ) across two broad domains: epilepsy and pharmacotherapy.

RESULTS

The study obtained 52 subjects (39.0 years; 45.0% males, 70.0% married, 35.0% unqualified, 85.0% active epilepsy, 80.0% generalized seizures) with idiopathic epilepsy. The alpha coefficient was 92.8, with no item-specific coefficient of ≤0.91. The alpha coefficient was 0.90 and 0.93 for reporting a "yes" and "no" to the items, respectively. We obtained a two-factor structure of BG-FEQ that provided a cumulative variance of 83.6%. The majority (65.0%) reported at least one fear. The per-patient mean number of the fear element was 2.1 (95% CI 1.1-3.3), which differed significantly for males and females (1.1, 95% CI 0.4-2.6 and 3.0, 95% CI 1.4-4.6, respectively, p=0.03). The most frequent fear was that of addiction and the bad effects of anti-seizure medications (both 45.0%). Upon bootstrap regression after constraining gender, the fear elements were associated with illiteracy, difficulty in understanding epilepsy and sleeping in a prone position. The sample power was 99.0%.

CONCLUSION

There was a significant representation of fear among those with idiopathic epilepsy, especially among the females, particularly the fear of brain tumour, premature death and more frequent/severe seizures over time. At least 65.0% of idiopathic subjects are likely to be affected by at least one fear. The essential mitigating approach should be the education of practitioners towards better identification and therapeutic handling of comorbid constructs, and also for the education of patients and their caregivers towards better awareness and prevention. There is also a need for formal Epilepsy Educators towards better awareness, therapeutic support and prevention of epilepsy.