Newer antiepileptic drugs compared to levetiracetam as adjunctive treatments for uncontrolled focal epilepsy: An indirect comparison

Trajectories of Inflammatory Markers and Post-COVID-19 Cognitive Symptoms: A Secondary Analysis of the CONTAIN COVID-19 Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Chronic systemic inflammation has been hypothesized to be a mechanistic factor leading to post-acute cognitive dysfunction after COVID-19. However, little data exist evaluating longitudinal inflammatory markers.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of data collected from the CONTAIN randomized trial of convalescent plasma in patients hospitalized for COVID-19, including patients who completed an 18-month assessment of cognitive symptoms and PROMIS Global Health questionnaires. Patients with pre-COVID-19 dementia/cognitive abnormalities were excluded. Trajectories of serum cytokine panels, D-dimer, fibrinogen, C-reactive peptide (CRP), ferritin, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and absolute neutrophil counts (ANCs) were evaluated over 18 months using repeated measures and Friedman nonparametric tests. The relationships between the area under the curve (AUC) for each inflammatory marker and 18-month cognitive and global health outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 279 patients (N = 140 received plasma, N = 139 received placebo) were included. At 18 months, 76/279 (27%) reported cognitive abnormalities and 78/279 (28%) reported fair or poor overall health. PROMIS Global Mental and Physical Health T-scores were 0.5 standard deviations below normal in 24% and 51% of patients, respectively. Inflammatory marker levels declined significantly from hospitalization to 18 months for all markers (IL-2, IL-2R, IL-4, IL-5, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-12, IL-13, INFγ, TNFα, D-dimer, fibrinogen, ferritin, LDH, CRP, neutrophils; all p < 0.05), with the exception of IL-1β, which remained stable over time. There were no significant associations between the AUC for any inflammatory marker and 18-month cognitive symptoms, any neurologic symptom, or PROMIS Global Physical or Mental health T-scores. Receipt of convalescent plasma was not associated with any outcome measure.

DISCUSSION

At 18 months posthospitalization for COVID-19, cognitive abnormalities were reported in 27% of patients, and below average PROMIS Global Mental and Physical Health scores occurred in 24% and 51%, respectively. However, there were no associations with measured inflammatory markers, which decreased over time.

A 5-Year Study of Antiseizure Medications (ASMs) Monitoring in Patients with Neuropsychiatric Disorders in an Italian Clinical Center

Despite receiving appropriate antiseizure medications (ASMs), a relevant percentage of neuropsychiatric patients do not benefit from this approach, and one reason is subtherapeutic ASMs plasma concentration (C(p)) due to improper drug adherence, interindividual pharmacokinetic differences, or metabolic interactions among different drugs. For these reasons, therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) by measuring ASMs C(p) is an effective tool that improves pharmacological therapies in clinical practice. Based on these premises, in the present real-world study, we analyzed the C(p) of the most used ASMs in diverse medical conditions, which were assayed during the years 2018-2022 at the University Hospital of Pisa, including about 24,000 samples. This population was largely heterogeneous, and our database did not contain clinical information about the patients. The most used ASMs were Valproate (VPA: 54.5%) and Levetiracetam (LEV: 18.6%), followed by Oxcarbazepine (OxCBZ: 8.3%) and Carbamazepine (CBZ: 7.2%), whereas the associations LEV/VPA, Ethosuximide (ESM)/VPA, and CBZ/VPA were the most frequently proposed. In about 2/3 of assays, ASMs C(p) was in range, except for VPA, which was underdosed in almost half of the samples. Importantly, toxic levels of ASMs C(p) were found very rarely. For VPA, there was a decrease of mean C(p) across ages, from adolescents to older patients, while the C(p) of LEV, CBZ, OxCBZ, and Topiramate (TPM) showed a slight tendency to increase. When we compared females and males, we found that for VPA, the average age was higher for females, whereas women taking Lamotrigine (LTG) and OxCBZ were younger than men. Then, comparing ASMs used in neurologic and psychiatric disorders, based on the request form, it emerged that the mean C(p) of CBZ, OxCBZ, and LTG on samples collected in the Psychiatric Unit was lower compared to the Neurology and Child Neuropsychiatry Units. Finally, the ASMs subjected to multiple dosing starting from an initial subtherapeutic C(p) increased their level at different time points within a year, reaching the reference range for some of them. In conclusion, the present study suggests that TDM is widely applied to monitor ASMs C(p), finding many of them within the reference range, as a demonstration of its utility in clinical practice.

Safety evaluation of perampanel as monotherapy or first adjunctive therapy in patients with epilepsy

INTRODUCTION

There is a need for anti-seizure medications (ASMs) that are well tolerated and effective as monotherapy or first adjunctive therapy to reduce the need for adjunctive ASMs to treat newly diagnosed epilepsy, and to reduce the number of concomitant ASMs in patients with refractory epilepsy. Although the pivotal trials of perampanel evaluated its adjunctive use in patients with refractory seizures, open-label/real-world studies support its use in first/second-line settings.

AREAS COVERED

This paper reviews the pharmacology, efficacy, and safety/tolerability of perampanel, focusing on its use as monotherapy or first adjunctive therapy. The safety of perampanel in special populations and its safety/tolerability compared with that of other ASMs is also discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

Perampanel is a favorable candidate for initial or first adjunctive therapy due to its favorable efficacy and safety/tolerability as monotherapy and adjunctive therapy, its long half-life and ease of use, and its limited drug-drug interactions. The proposed mitigation strategies for managing the risk of serious psychiatric adverse events are appropriate patient selection, use of low doses, and slow titration. The growing body of evidence might shift current treatment strategies towards the early use of perampanel and its use at a low dose (4 mg/day).

Antiseizure medication discovery: Recent and future paradigm shifts

Despite the ever-increasing number of available options for the treatment of epilepsies and the remarkable advances on the understanding of their pathophysiology, the proportion of refractory patients has remained approximately unmodified during the last 100 years. How efficient are we translating positive outcomes from basic research to clinical trials and/or the clinical scenario? It is possible that fresh thinking and exploration of new paradigms is required to arrive at truly novel therapeutic solutions, as seemingly proven by recently approved first-in-class antiseizure medications and drug candidates undergoing late clinical trials. Here, the author discusses some approximations in line with the network pharmacology philosophy, which may result in highly innovative (and, hopefully, safer and/or more efficacious) medications for the control of seizures, as embodied with some recent examples in the field, namely tailored multi-target agents and low-affinity ligands.

Recommendations for the treatment of epilepsy in adult and pediatric patients in Belgium: 2020 update

To guide health care professionals in Belgium in selecting the appropriate antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) for their epilepsy patients, a group of Belgian epilepsy experts developed recommendations for AED treatment in adults and children (initial recommendations in 2008, updated in 2012). As new drugs have become available, others have been withdrawn, new indications have been approved and recommendations for pregnant women have changed, a new update was pertinent. A group of Belgian epilepsy experts (partly overlapping with the group in charge of the 2008/2012 recommendations) evaluated the most recent international guidelines and relevant literature for their applicability to the Belgian situation (registration status, reimbursement, clinical practice) and updated the recommendations for initial monotherapy in adults and children and add-on treatment in adults. Recommendations for add-on treatment in children were also included (not covered in the 2008/2012 publications). Like the 2008/2012 publications, the current update also covers other important aspects related to the management of epilepsy, including the importance of early referral in drug-resistant epilepsy, pharmacokinetic properties and tolerability of AEDs, comorbidities, specific considerations in elderly and pregnant patients, generic substitution and the rapidly evolving field of precision medicine.

Comparison of the safety of brivaracetam at various doses among patients with epilepsy: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The present study aimed to compare the safety of brivaracetam (BRV) at various doses among patients with epilepsy through a network meta-analysis. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were retrieved from different databases, which were then pooled for a network analysis for calculating the odds ratios (ORs), together with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). A total of 9 RCTs were included in the final analysis. Compared with placebo, BRV at a dose of 50 mg daily led to a markedly increased risk of nervous system disorders (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.43-0.90; P=0.01) and evidently increased the risk of psychiatric disorders (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.04-0.64; P=0.022). However, BRV treatment was not associated with a statistically significant change in the prevalence of infectious diseases. SUCRA analysis suggested that treatment with BRV at 50 mg/day posed the highest risk of nervous system disorders and psychiatric disorders compared with placebo or other doses of BRV. In conclusion, BRV treatment at a dose of 50 mg/day may increase the risk of nervous system diseases and psychosis disorders compared with the placebo group. However, more high-quality clinical studies are warranted to validate these results.

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.

Negotiating the boundaries of the medical model: Experiences of people with epilepsy

People with epilepsy (PWE) continually report dissatisfaction with the support they receive, particularly in regard to their psychological wellbeing. With its focus on optimal seizure control, epilepsy treatment is entrenched in the medical model of illness, despite growing evidence of the broader psychosocial impact of the condition. This study aimed to explore how PWE experience healthcare in the context of their lives. Semistructured interviews were conducted with thirty-nine adults with epilepsy from across the UK. An adapted version of interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) was conducted, and three superordinate themes were identified. Firstly, "negotiating the space between health and illness" identified how participants rejected the illness identity and struggled with a treatment regime, which reminded them of the longevity of their condition. Secondly, "tensions in adopting a biomedical perspective" considered how medical professionals overlooked the negative side effects medication had on participants' lives, in favor of optimal seizure control. Thirdly, "the need for broader support" highlighted the additional psychosocial support PWE require. The findings indicate the need to incorporate person-centered, psychological services within the care pathway for PWE, as well as training for health professionals to recognize the broader impact of epilepsy beyond seizure management.

Effectiveness of eslicarbazepine acetate in dependency of baseline anticonvulsant therapy: Results from a German prospective multicenter clinical practice study

Eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) is a third-generation antiepileptic drug (AED) approved as monotherapy for partial-onset seizures in adults and as adjunctive therapy in patients aged above 6 years in the European Union (EU). The prospective observational Zebinix Effects in DEpendency of BAseline Conditions (ZEDEBAC) study aimed at investigating the effectiveness of ESL in clinical practice, with ESL being administered as monotherapy (mono group), as only add-on to a current monotherapy (1+ group), or as add-on to ≥2 baseline AEDs (≥2+ group). In total, 237 patients were included, 35 in the mono group, 114 in the 1+, and 88 in the ≥2+ group. Six-month retention rates were 93.9%, 78.0%, and 75.3% in the mono, 1+, and ≥2+ group. There were 90.5%, 77.6%, and 48.3% of patients in the mono, 1+, and ≥2+ groups who were responders (patients with a ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency at follow-up vs. baseline). Seizure freedom rates were 81.5%, 47.9%, and 23.4%, respectively. Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) occurred in 11.4% of patients of the mono, 19.3% of the 1+, and 28.4% of patients of the ≥2+ group. Hyponatremia was reported as ADR in 3.4% of all patients. Although baseline variables differed considerably, with most elderly patients with tumor-related and vascular etiologies in the mono group and most patients with refractory epilepsies with pronounced use of concomitant sodium channel blockers (SCBs) in the ≥2+ group, retention as a measure of real-life effectiveness turned out not to be substantially different and favorable in all groups.

Brivaracetam: a newly approved medication for epilepsy

Brivaracetam (BRV) in both the USA and EU was developed as a novel molecule for the adjunctive treatment of partial-onset (focal) seizures in patients ≥16 years of age and as of September 2017 was approved for use as monotherapy in the USA uniquely as an antiseizure medication that may be prescribed without a dose finding uptitration. This article reviews BRV's pharmacology, efficacy, safety and adverse event profiles, along with the relevant and noted regulatory hurdles in the USA and the EU. Available postmarketing data will also be summarized. Approximately 3000 patients were studied over about 9 years in the clinical trial program illustrating that BRV has efficacy at 50–200 mg/day with an acceptable adverse event profile.

Levetiracetam for epilepsy: an evidence map of efficacy, safety and economic profiles

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy, safety and economics of levetiracetam (LEV) for epilepsy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, OpenGrey.eu and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for systematic reviews (SRs), meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, case reports and economic studies published from January 2007 to April 2018. We used a bubble plot to graphically display information of included studies and conducted meta-analyses to quantitatively synthesize the evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 14,803 records were obtained. We included 30 SRs/meta-analyses, 34 RCTs, 18 observational studies, 58 case reports and 2 economic studies after the screening process. The included SRs enrolled patients with pediatric epilepsy, epilepsy in pregnancy, focal epilepsy, generalized epilepsy and refractory focal epilepsy. Meta-analysis of the included RCTs indicated that LEV was as effective as carbamazepine (CBZ; treatment for 6 months: 58.9% vs 64.8%, OR=0.76, 95% CI: 0.50-1.16; 12 months: 54.9% vs 55.5%, OR=1.24, 95% CI: 0.79-1.93), oxcarbazepine (57.7% vs 59.8%, OR=1.34, 95% CI: 0.34-5.23), phenobarbital (50.0% vs 50.9%, OR=1.20, 95% CI: 0.51-2.82) and lamotrigine (LTG; 61.5% vs 57.7%, OR=1.22, 95% CI: 0.90-1.66). SRs and observational studies indicated a low malformation rate and intrauterine death rate for pregnant women, as well as low risk of cognitive side effects. But psychiatric and behavioral side effects could not be ruled out. LEV decreased discontinuation due to adverse events compared with CBZ (OR=0.52, 95% CI: 0.41-0.65), while no difference was found when LEV was compared with placebo and LTG. Two cost-effectiveness evaluations for refractory epilepsy with decision-tree model showed US$ 76.18 per seizure-free day gained in Canada and US$ 44 per seizure-free day gained in Korea.

CONCLUSION

LEV is as effective as CBZ, oxcarbazepine, phenobarbital and LTG and has an advantage for pregnant women and in cognitive functions. Limited evidence supports its cost-effectiveness.

REGISTERED NUMBER

PROSPERO (No CRD 42017069367).

Eslicarbazepine acetate as a replacement for levetiracetam in people with epilepsy developing behavioral adverse events

BACKGROUND

Psychiatric and behavioral side effects (PBSEs) are a major cause of antiepileptic drug (AED) withdrawal. Levetiracetam (LEV) is a recognized first-line AED with good seizure outcomes but recognized with PBSEs. Eslicarbazepine (ESL) is considered to function similarly to an active metabolite of the commonly used carbamazepine (CBZ). Carbamazepine is used as psychotropic medication to assist in various psychiatric illnesses such as mood disorders, aggression, and anxiety.

AIM

The aim was to evaluate the psychiatric profile of ESL in people who had LEV withdrawn due to PBSEs in routine clinical practice to see if ESL can be used as a possible alternative to LEV.

METHODS

A retrospective observational review was conducted in two UK epilepsy centers looking at all cases exposed to ESL since its licensing in 2010. The ESL group was all patients with treatment-resistant epilepsy who developed intolerable PBSEs to LEV, subsequently trialed on ESL. The ESL group was matched to a group who tolerated LEV without intolerable PBSEs. Psychiatric disorders were identified from case notes. The Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D) was used to outcome change in mood. Clinical diagnoses of a mental disorder were compared between groups using the Fisher's exact test. Group differences in HAM-D scores were assessed using the independent samples t-test (alpha=0.05).

RESULTS

The total number of people with active epilepsy in the two centers was 2142 of whom 46 had been exposed to ESL. Twenty-six had previous exposure to LEV and had intolerable PBSEs who were matched to a person tolerating LEV. There was no statistical differences in the two groups for mental disorders including mood as measured by HAM-D (Chi-square test: p=0.28).

CONCLUSION

The ESL was well tolerated and did not produce significant PBSEs in those who had PBSEs with LEV leading to withdrawal of the drug. Though numbers were small, the findings suggest that ESL could be a treatment option in those who develop PBSEs with LEV and possibly other AEDs.

Efficacy and tolerability of perampanel and levetiracetam as first add-on therapy in patients with epilepsy: A retrospective single center study

Perampanel (PER) is a third generation antiepileptic drug (AED), recently approved as add-on therapy in both focal and generalized seizures. Levetiracetam (LEV) is a second generation AED, widely used in patients with epilepsy because of its favorable safety and efficacy profiles. Perampanel and LEV treatments have been associated with the occurrence of similar adverse events (AEs) (sleepiness, irritability, depression, anxiety, aggressiveness). The aim of the present retrospective single center study was to verify the efficacy and tolerability of PER and LEV used as first add-on therapy in patients with epilepsy affected by secondarily generalized seizures. We collected data from 15 patients treated with PER and 26 patients treated with LEV and followed at our site with follow-up visits at 3, 6, and 12months. This retrospective study documented the comparable efficacy of PER and LEV as first add-on treatments in patients affected by uncontrolled secondarily generalized seizures. However, more patients withdrawn LEV because of AEs compared with PER at the 3- and 12-month follow-up visits. The better tolerability of PER observed in this study could be related to the low therapeutic dose of PER prescribed when it is used as first adjunctive treatment for better controlling secondarily generalized seizures.