Efficacy and tolerability of conversion to monotherapy with lamotrigine compared with valproate and carbamazepine in patients with epilepsy

Antiepileptic drug monotherapy for epilepsy: a network meta-analysis of individual participant data

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2017. Epilepsy is a common neurological condition with a worldwide prevalence of around 1%. Approximately 60% to 70% of people with epilepsy will achieve a longer-term remission from seizures, and most achieve that remission shortly after starting antiepileptic drug treatment. Most people with epilepsy are treated with a single antiepileptic drug (monotherapy) and current guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom for adults and children recommend carbamazepine or lamotrigine as first-line treatment for focal onset seizures and sodium valproate for generalised onset seizures; however, a range of other antiepileptic drug (AED) treatments are available, and evidence is needed regarding their comparative effectiveness in order to inform treatment choices.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure of 12 AEDs (carbamazepine, phenytoin, sodium valproate, phenobarbitone, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, gabapentin, topiramate, eventrate, zonisamide, eslicarbazepine acetate, lacosamide) currently used as monotherapy in children and adults with focal onset seizures (simple focal, complex focal or secondary generalised) or generalised tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types (absence, myoclonus).

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 12 April 2021: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to April 09, 2021). We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of a monotherapy design in adults or children with focal onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This was an individual participant data (IPD) and network meta-analysis (NMA) review. Our primary outcome was 'time to treatment failure', and our secondary outcomes were 'time to achieve 12-month remission', 'time to achieve six-month remission', and 'time to first seizure post-randomisation'. We performed frequentist NMA to combine direct evidence with indirect evidence across the treatment network of 12 drugs. We investigated inconsistency between direct 'pairwise' estimates and NMA results via node splitting. Results are presented as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and we assessed the certainty of the evidence using the CiNeMA approach, based on the GRADE framework. We have also provided a narrative summary of the most commonly reported adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

IPD were provided for at least one outcome of this review for 14,789 out of a total of 22,049 eligible participants (67% of total data) from 39 out of the 89 eligible trials (43% of total trials). We could not include IPD from the remaining 50 trials in analysis for a variety of reasons, such as being unable to contact an author or sponsor to request data, data being lost or no longer available, cost and resources required to prepare data being prohibitive, or local authority or country-specific restrictions. No IPD were available from a single trial of eslicarbazepine acetate, so this AED could not be included in the NMA. Network meta-analysis showed high-certainty evidence that for our primary outcome, 'time to treatment failure', for individuals with focal seizures; lamotrigine performs better than most other treatments in terms of treatment failure for any reason and due to adverse events, including the other first-line treatment carbamazepine; HRs (95% CIs) for treatment failure for any reason for lamotrigine versus: eventrate 1.01 (0.88 to 1.20), zonisamide 1.18 (0.96 to 1.44), lacosamide 1.19 (0.90 to 1.58), carbamazepine 1.26 (1.10 to 1.44), oxcarbazepine 1.30 (1.02 to 1.66), sodium valproate 1.35 (1.09 to 1.69), phenytoin 1.44 (1.11 to 1.85), topiramate 1.50 (1.23 to 1.81), gabapentin 1.53 (1.26 to 1.85), phenobarbitone 1.97 (1.45 to 2.67). No significant difference between lamotrigine and eventrate was shown for any treatment failure outcome, and both AEDs seemed to perform better than all other AEDs. For people with generalised onset seizures, evidence was more limited and of moderate certainty; no other treatment performed better than first-line treatment sodium valproate, but there were no differences between sodium valproate, lamotrigine or eventrate in terms of treatment failure; HRs (95% CIs) for treatment failure for any reason for sodium valproate versus: lamotrigine 1.06 (0.81 to 1.37), eventrate 1.13 (0.89 to 1.42), gabapentin 1.13 (0.61 to 2.11), phenytoin 1.17 (0.80 to 1.73), oxcarbazepine 1.24 (0.72 to 2.14), topiramate 1.37 (1.06 to 1.77), carbamazepine 1.52 (1.18 to 1.96), phenobarbitone 2.13 (1.20 to 3.79), lacosamide 2.64 (1.14 to 6.09). Network meta-analysis also showed high-certainty evidence that for secondary remission outcomes, few notable differences were shown for either seizure type; for individuals with focal seizures, carbamazepine performed better than gabapentin (12-month remission) and sodium valproate (six-month remission). No differences between lamotrigine and any AED were shown for individuals with focal seizures, or between sodium valproate and other AEDs for individuals with generalised onset seizures. Network meta-analysis also showed high- to moderate-certainty evidence that, for 'time to first seizure,' in general, the earliest licensed treatments (phenytoin and phenobarbitone) performed better than the other treatments for individuals with focal seizures; phenobarbitone performed better than both first-line treatments carbamazepine and lamotrigine. There were no notable differences between the newer drugs (oxcarbazepine, topiramate, gabapentin, eventrate, zonisamide and lacosamide) for either seizure type. Generally, direct evidence (where available) and network meta-analysis estimates were numerically similar and consistent with confidence intervals of effect sizes overlapping. There was no important indication of inconsistency between direct and network meta-analysis results. The most commonly reported adverse events across all drugs were drowsiness/fatigue, headache or migraine, gastrointestinal disturbances, dizziness/faintness and rash or skin disorders; however, reporting of adverse events was highly variable across AEDs and across studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High-certainty evidence demonstrates that for people with focal onset seizures, current first-line treatment options carbamazepine and lamotrigine, as well as newer drug eventrate, show the best profile in terms of treatment failure and seizure control as first-line treatments. For people with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other seizure types), current first-line treatment sodium valproate has the best profile compared to all other treatments, but lamotrigine and eventrate would be the most suitable alternative first-line treatments, particularly for those for whom sodium valproate may not be an appropriate treatment option. Further evidence from randomised controlled trials recruiting individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other seizure types) is needed.

The effectiveness of antiepileptic drug treatment in glioma patients: lamotrigine versus lacosamide

Purpose

Optimal treatment with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is an important part of care for brain tumor patients with epileptic seizures. Lamotrigine and lacosamide are both examples of frequently used non-enzyme inducing AEDs with limited to no drug-drug interactions, reducing the risk of unfavorable side effects. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of lamotrigine versus lacosamide.

Methods

In this multicenter study we retrospectively analyzed data of patients with diffuse grade 2–4 glioma with epileptic seizures. All patients received either lamotrigine or lacosamide during the course of their disease after treatment failure of first-line monotherapy with levetiracetam or valproic acid. Primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of treatment failure, from initiation of lamotrigine or lacosamide, with death as competing event, for which a competing risk model was used. Secondary outcomes were uncontrolled seizures after AED initiation and level of toxicity.

Results

We included a total of 139 patients of whom 61 (44%) used lamotrigine and 78 (56%) used lacosamide. At 12 months, there was no statistically significant difference in the cumulative incidence of treatment failure for any reason between lamotrigine and lacosamide: 38% (95%CI 26–51%) versus 30% (95%CI 20–41%), respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio for treatment failure of lacosamide compared to lamotrigine was 0.84 (95%CI 0.46–1.56). The cumulative incidences of treatment failure due to uncontrolled seizures (18% versus 11%) and due to adverse events (17% versus 19%) did not differ significantly between lamotrigine and lacosamide.

Conclusion

Lamotrigine and lacosamide show similar effectiveness in diffuse glioma patients with epilepsy.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11060-021-03800-z.

Risk of Valproic Acid-Related Tremor: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose: To evaluate the incidence and risk of tremor in patients treated with valproic aid (VPA) monotherapy.

Methods: We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to gather relevant data on tremor in patients taking VPA and other drugs and performed a meta-analysis using Stata15.1 software.

Results: Twenty-nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The overall incidence of tremor in patients receiving VPA therapy was 14% [OR = 0.14, 95% CI (0.10–0.17)]. The pooled estimate risk of tremor showed a significant difference between patients treated with VPA and all other drugs [OR = 5.40, 95% CI (3.22–9.08)], other antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) [OR = 5.78, 95% CI (3.18–10.50)], and other non-AEDs [OR = 4.77, 95% CI (1.55–14.72)]. Both a dose of <1,500 mg/d of VPA [included 500 mg/d: OR = 3.57, 95% CI (1.24–10.26), 500–999 mg/d: OR = 3.99, 95% CI (1.95–8.20), 1,000–1,499 mg/d: OR = 8.82, 95% CI (3.25–23.94)] and a VPA treatment duration of <12 m [included ≤ 3 months: OR = 3.06, 95% CI (1.16–8.09), 3–6 months: OR = 16.98, 95% CI (9.14–31.57), and 6–12 months: OR = 4.15, 95% CI (2.74–6.29)] led to a higher risk of tremor than did other drugs, as did higher doses and longer treatment times.

Conclusion: Compared with other drugs, VPA led to a higher risk of tremor, and the level of risk was associated with the dose and duration of treatment.

Risk of valproic acid-related alopecia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

We systematically reviewed studies to provide current evidence about the incidence and risk of alopecia in patients undergoing valproic acid (VPA) therapy.

METHODS

We retrieved relevant publications and gathered data on alopecia in patients taking VPA and other drugs from prospective studies.

RESULTS

Twenty-five articles met the inclusion criteria, and the overall incidence of alopecia in patients receiving VPA therapy was 11% (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.08-0.13). The pooled risk of alopecia showed a significant difference between patients treated with VPA and all other drugs (odds ratio (OR) 5.02, 95% CI: 3.58-7.03), other epileptic drugs (AEDs) (OR 4.82, 95% CI: 3.32-7.00) and other non-AEDs (OR 5.84, 95% CI: 2.67-12.81). Compared to other drugs, VPA increased the risk of alopecia both in patients with migraine headaches (OR 6.05, 95% CI: 2.89-12.63) and patients with epilepsy (OR 5.29, 95% CI: 3.53-7.92), and the increase risk was reported more frequently in patients with migraine. Both lower doses (OR 4.38, 95% CI: 2.32-8.25) and shorter treatments (OR 4.98, 95% CI: 2.41-10.25) with VPA posed a high risk of alopecia compared to other drugs, as did higher doses and longer treatment times.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our findings, VPA was significantly associated with a risk of alopecia compared to other drugs, and the risk did not depend on the dose and treatment time.

Antiepileptic drug monotherapy for epilepsy: a network meta-analysis of individual participant data

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is a common neurological condition with a worldwide prevalence of around 1%. Approximately 60% to 70% of people with epilepsy will achieve a longer-term remission from seizures, and most achieve that remission shortly after starting antiepileptic drug treatment. Most people with epilepsy are treated with a single antiepileptic drug (monotherapy) and current guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom for adults and children recommend carbamazepine or lamotrigine as first-line treatment for partial onset seizures and sodium valproate for generalised onset seizures; however a range of other antiepileptic drug (AED) treatments are available, and evidence is needed regarding their comparative effectiveness in order to inform treatment choices.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the time to withdrawal of allocated treatment, remission and first seizure of 10 AEDs (carbamazepine, phenytoin, sodium valproate, phenobarbitone, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, gabapentin, topiramate, levetiracetam, zonisamide) currently used as monotherapy in children and adults with partial onset seizures (simple partial, complex partial or secondary generalised) or generalised tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types (absence, myoclonus).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: Cochrane Epilepsy's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and SCOPUS, and two clinical trials registers. We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field. The date of the most recent search was 27 July 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of a monotherapy design in adults or children with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This was an individual participant data (IPD) review and network meta-analysis. Our primary outcome was 'time to withdrawal of allocated treatment', and our secondary outcomes were 'time to achieve 12-month remission', 'time to achieve six-month remission', 'time to first seizure post-randomisation', and 'occurrence of adverse events'. We presented all time-to-event outcomes as Cox proportional hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We performed pairwise meta-analysis of head-to-head comparisons between drugs within trials to obtain 'direct' treatment effect estimates and we performed frequentist network meta-analysis to combine direct evidence with indirect evidence across the treatment network of 10 drugs. We investigated inconsistency between direct estimates and network meta-analysis via node splitting. Due to variability in methods and detail of reporting adverse events, we have not performed an analysis. We have provided a narrative summary of the most commonly reported adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

IPD was provided for at least one outcome of this review for 12,391 out of a total of 17,961 eligible participants (69% of total data) from 36 out of the 77 eligible trials (47% of total trials). We could not include IPD from the remaining 41 trials in analysis for a variety of reasons, such as being unable to contact an author or sponsor to request data, data being lost or no longer available, cost and resources required to prepare data being prohibitive, or local authority or country-specific restrictions.We were able to calculate direct treatment effect estimates for between half and two thirds of comparisons across the outcomes of the review, however for many of the comparisons, data were contributed by only a single trial or by a small number of participants, so confidence intervals of estimates were wide.Network meta-analysis showed that for the primary outcome 'Time to withdrawal of allocated treatment,' for individuals with partial seizures; levetiracetam performed (statistically) significantly better than current first-line treatment carbamazepine and other current first-line treatment lamotrigine performed better than all other treatments (aside from levetiracetam); carbamazepine performed significantly better than gabapentin and phenobarbitone (high-quality evidence). For individuals with generalised onset seizures, first-line treatment sodium valproate performed significantly better than carbamazepine, topiramate and phenobarbitone (moderate- to high-quality evidence). Furthermore, for both partial and generalised onset seizures, the earliest licenced treatment, phenobarbitone seems to perform worse than all other treatments (moderate- to high-quality evidence).Network meta-analysis also showed that for secondary outcomes 'Time to 12-month remission of seizures' and 'Time to six-month remission of seizures,' few notable differences were shown for either partial or generalised seizure types (moderate- to high-quality evidence). For secondary outcome 'Time to first seizure,' for individuals with partial seizures; phenobarbitone performed significantly better than both current first-line treatments carbamazepine and lamotrigine; carbamazepine performed significantly better than sodium valproate, gabapentin and lamotrigine. Phenytoin also performed significantly better than lamotrigine (high-quality evidence). In general, the earliest licenced treatments (phenytoin and phenobarbitone) performed better than the other treatments for both seizure types (moderate- to high-quality evidence).Generally, direct evidence and network meta-analysis estimates (direct plus indirect evidence) were numerically similar and consistent with confidence intervals of effect sizes overlapping.The most commonly reported adverse events across all drugs were drowsiness/fatigue, headache or migraine, gastrointestinal disturbances, dizziness/faintness and rash or skin disorders.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the high-quality evidence provided by this review supports current guidance (e.g. NICE) that carbamazepine and lamotrigine are suitable first-line treatments for individuals with partial onset seizures and also demonstrates that levetiracetam may be a suitable alternative. High-quality evidence from this review also supports the use of sodium valproate as the first-line treatment for individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types) and also demonstrates that lamotrigine and levetiracetam would be suitable alternatives to either of these first-line treatments, particularly for those of childbearing potential, for whom sodium valproate may not be an appropriate treatment option due to teratogenicity.

Antiepileptic drug monotherapy for epilepsy: a network meta-analysis of individual participant data

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is a common neurological condition with a worldwide prevalence of around 1%. Approximately 60% to 70% of people with epilepsy will achieve a longer-term remission from seizures, and most achieve that remission shortly after starting antiepileptic drug treatment. Most people with epilepsy are treated with a single antiepileptic drug (monotherapy) and current guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom for adults and children recommend carbamazepine or lamotrigine as first-line treatment for partial onset seizures and sodium valproate for generalised onset seizures; however a range of other antiepileptic drug (AED) treatments are available, and evidence is needed regarding their comparative effectiveness in order to inform treatment choices.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the time to withdrawal of allocated treatment, remission and first seizure of 10 AEDs (carbamazepine, phenytoin, sodium valproate, phenobarbitone, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, gabapentin, topiramate, levetiracetam, zonisamide) currently used as monotherapy in children and adults with partial onset seizures (simple partial, complex partial or secondary generalised) or generalised tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types (absence, myoclonus).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: Cochrane Epilepsy's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and SCOPUS, and two clinical trials registers. We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field. The date of the most recent search was 27 July 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of a monotherapy design in adults or children with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This was an individual participant data (IPD) review and network meta-analysis. Our primary outcome was 'time to withdrawal of allocated treatment', and our secondary outcomes were 'time to achieve 12-month remission', 'time to achieve six-month remission', 'time to first seizure post-randomisation', and 'occurrence of adverse events'. We presented all time-to-event outcomes as Cox proportional hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We performed pairwise meta-analysis of head-to-head comparisons between drugs within trials to obtain 'direct' treatment effect estimates and we performed frequentist network meta-analysis to combine direct evidence with indirect evidence across the treatment network of 10 drugs. We investigated inconsistency between direct estimates and network meta-analysis via node splitting. Due to variability in methods and detail of reporting adverse events, we have not performed an analysis. We have provided a narrative summary of the most commonly reported adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

IPD was provided for at least one outcome of this review for 12,391 out of a total of 17,961 eligible participants (69% of total data) from 36 out of the 77 eligible trials (47% of total trials). We could not include IPD from the remaining 41 trials in analysis for a variety of reasons, such as being unable to contact an author or sponsor to request data, data being lost or no longer available, cost and resources required to prepare data being prohibitive, or local authority or country-specific restrictions.We were able to calculate direct treatment effect estimates for between half and two thirds of comparisons across the outcomes of the review, however for many of the comparisons, data were contributed by only a single trial or by a small number of participants, so confidence intervals of estimates were wide.Network meta-analysis showed that for the primary outcome 'Time to withdrawal of allocated treatment,' for individuals with partial seizures; levetiracetam performed (statistically) significantly better than both current first-line treatments carbamazepine and lamotrigine; lamotrigine performed better than all other treatments (aside from levetiracetam), and carbamazepine performed significantly better than gabapentin and phenobarbitone (high-quality evidence). For individuals with generalised onset seizures, first-line treatment sodium valproate performed significantly better than carbamazepine, topiramate and phenobarbitone (moderate- to high-quality evidence). Furthermore, for both partial and generalised onset seizures, the earliest licenced treatment, phenobarbitone seems to perform worse than all other treatments (moderate- to high-quality evidence).Network meta-analysis also showed that for secondary outcomes 'Time to 12-month remission of seizures' and 'Time to six-month remission of seizures,' few notable differences were shown for either partial or generalised seizure types (moderate- to high-quality evidence). For secondary outcome 'Time to first seizure,' for individuals with partial seizures; phenobarbitone performed significantly better than both current first-line treatments carbamazepine and lamotrigine; carbamazepine performed significantly better than sodium valproate, gabapentin and lamotrigine. Phenytoin also performed significantly better than lamotrigine (high-quality evidence). In general, the earliest licenced treatments (phenytoin and phenobarbitone) performed better than the other treatments for both seizure types (moderate- to high-quality evidence).Generally, direct evidence and network meta-analysis estimates (direct plus indirect evidence) were numerically similar and consistent with confidence intervals of effect sizes overlapping.The most commonly reported adverse events across all drugs were drowsiness/fatigue, headache or migraine, gastrointestinal disturbances, dizziness/faintness and rash or skin disorders.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the high-quality evidence provided by this review supports current guidance (e.g. NICE) that carbamazepine and lamotrigine are suitable first-line treatments for individuals with partial onset seizures and also demonstrates that levetiracetam may be a suitable alternative. High-quality evidence from this review also supports the use of sodium valproate as the first-line treatment for individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types) and also demonstrates that lamotrigine and levetiracetam would be suitable alternatives to either of these first-line treatments, particularly for those of childbearing potential, for whom sodium valproate may not be an appropriate treatment option due to teratogenicity.

Structured clinical documentation in the electronic medical record to improve quality and to support practice-based research in epilepsy

Objective

Using the electronic medical record (EMR) to capture structured clinical data at the point of care would be a practical way to support quality improvement and practice‐based research in epilepsy.

Methods

We describe our stepwise process for building structured clinical documentation support tools in the EMR that define best practices in epilepsy, and we describe how we incorporated these toolkits into our clinical workflow.

Results

These tools write notes and capture hundreds of fields of data including several score tests: Generalized Anxiety Disorder‐7 items, Neurological Disorders Depression Inventory for Epilepsy, Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Quality of Life in Epilepsy–10 items, Montreal Cognitive Assessment/Short Test of Mental Status, and Medical Research Council Prognostic Index. The tools summarize brain imaging, blood laboratory, and electroencephalography results, and document neuromodulation treatments. The tools provide Best Practices Advisories and other clinical decision support when appropriate. The tools prompt enrollment in a DNA biobanking study. We have thus far enrolled 231 patients for initial visits and are starting our first annual follow‐up visits and provide a brief description of our cohort.

Significance

We are sharing these EMR tools and captured data with other epilepsy clinics as part of a Neurology Practice Based Research Network, and are using the tools to conduct pragmatic trials using subgroup‐based adaptive designs.

Lamotrigine in binge-eating disorder associated with bipolar II depression and treatment-resistant type 2 diabetes mellitus: a case report

BACKGROUND

Lamotrigine (LMG) is an anticonvulsant currently registered for the treatment of bipolar disorder (BP) depression. We report the case of a 61-year-old woman with comorbid binge-eating disorder (BED), BP depression, and treatment-resistant type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), in which LMG showed significant efficacy against BED and BP depression and resulted in a drastic decrease in plasma glucose levels.

CASE REPORT

The patient had had untreated BP depression, BED, and T2DM for more than 30 years. We prescribed LMG at 25 mg/d for BP depression and titrated it up to 50 mg/d over 4 weeks, then maintained this dose for the next 16 weeks. At follow-up after the first 4-week period, she reported a significant decrease in compulsive eating impulses and depressive mood, and her positive reports were consistent in the following months. Hemoglobin A1c levels at National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program decreased drastically from 9.6% to 7.1% over the 20 weeks after initiating treatment.

CONCLUSION

This case suggests that LMG might be beneficial for BED with concomitant BP depression, and potentially for treatment-resistant T2DM, if this refractoriness is identified to result from comorbidity of BED and BP.

Conversion from valproic acid onto topiramate in adolescents and adults with epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

To explore efficacy and tolerability outcomes of topiramate (TPM) in patients with epilepsy transitioning from valproic acid (VPA) because of insufficient efficacy and/or tolerability onto TPM.

METHODS

Multicenter, open label, single arm, non-interventional study examining patients (> or =12 years) with epilepsy, transitioning onto TPM from baseline mono-or combination therapy with VPA. TPM was added onto the existing antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment and started at a dose of 25 mg once daily. The dose was titrated up with 25 mg/day increments, once every 1-2 weeks, until a final dose between 50-200 mg/day was reached. Based on clinical judgment, the treating physician decided whether or not and when the existing AED treatment especially with VPA could be withdrawn. Documented were type and frequency of seizures, TPM dose, quality of life (QOLIE-10 questionnaire), subjective perception of improvement, and adverse events (AE).

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-seven patients (59% women, mean age 41 years) switched from baseline VPA treatment onto TPM because of insufficient efficacy (61%) and/or poor tolerability (81%). Average duration of follow-up was 20.3 weeks with an overall discontinuation rate of 16.3% of patients, mainly because of AE (in 8.2% of 147 patients). At study endpoint, the intended shift to TPM monotherapy was achieved in 70% of patients at a median dose of 150 mg/day. A seizure reduction of > or =50% was achieved in 75% of patients in the last scheduled period (week 8-20), and 51% of patients entering that period remained seizure-free. Quality of life improved significantly as compared with baseline for all domains of QOLIE-10 (P < 0.001). Most frequent AEs were weight decrease (4.8%), paraesthesia and fatigue (4.1% each), speech disorder and headaches (2.7% each).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with epilepsy not satisfactorily treated with VPA, conversion to TPM was associated with improved seizure control as well as improvement in several aspects of quality of life.

Conversion from carbamazepine or oxcarbazepine to topiramate in adolescents and adults with epilepsy

OBJECTIVE

To explore effectiveness, tolerability and changes in quality of life in patients with epilepsy converting to topiramate (TPM) from carbamazepine (CBZ) or oxcarbazepine (OXC) due to insufficient effectiveness and/or tolerability.

METHODS

A multicenter, open-label, non-interventional trial was used to examine patients (> or = 12 years) with epilepsy, changing to TPM monotherapy from baseline mono- or combination therapy with CBZ or OXC. TPM was added to the existing antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment and started at a dose of 25 mg once daily. The dose was titrated up with 25 mg/day increments, once every 1-2 weeks, until a final dose between 50 and 200 mg/day was reached. On the basis of clinical judgment, the treating physician decided whether or not the existing AED treatment with CBZ or OXC could then be withdrawn. Type and number of seizures, preferred TPM dose, quality of life (QOLIE-10 questionnaire), subjective perception of improvement and adverse events (AE) were documented.

RESULTS

140 patients (53.5% women, mean age 47 years) decided to switch to TPM due to insufficient effectiveness (75% of patients) and/or poor tolerability (80%) of the CBZ/OXC treatment. Average duration of follow-up was 24 weeks with an overall discontinuation rate of 19.3%, mainly due to AEs (12.1%). At study endpoint, the intended shift to TPM monotherapy was achieved in 73% of patients at a median TPM dose of 100 mg/day. A seizure reduction of > or = 50% was achieved in 91% of patients in the last scheduled period (weeks 12-26); 62% of patients entering that period remained seizure free. Quality of life at endpoint improved significantly when compared with baseline for all domains of QOLIE-10 (P < 0.001). Most frequent AEs (reported by > or = 5% of patients) were paresthesia (9.3%), weight loss (7.9%), convulsions (5.7%) and memory disorders (5.0%).

CONCLUSION

In patients with epilepsy, previously not satisfactorily treated with CBZ or OXC, conversion to TPM may result in an improvement in seizure control as well as in quality of life.

Conversions between monotherapies in epilepsy: expert consensus

To develop expert consensus for conversion between antiepileptic drug (AED) monotherapies, an 11-member panel used the Delphi Technique over three rounds to: (1) identify relevant issues, (2) vote on the issues, and (3) develop consensus. The panel agreed on the basic principle to taper the existing AED only after a presumably efficacious dose of the planned AED was reached. Application is modified by adverse effects possibly attributable to the existing drug, in which case earlier or more rapid tapering of the existing drug should be considered. Patients with uncontrolled seizures, as well as seizure-free patients for whom driving privileges are a consideration, may benefit from slower tapering by smaller dosage decrements of the existing AED. For 10 of the 12 AEDs considered, the panel made titration recommendations concerning initial and target doses for the planned AED, supplementing limited data in the prescribing information. This expert guidance will aid in the period of transitional polytherapy with AEDs from monotherapy to monotherapy.

Long-term profile of lamotrigine in 119 children with epilepsy

Lamotrigine (LTG) was reported to have a positive profile especially regarding cognition. Our investigation focuses on whether the experiences of physicians and parents of children with long-term LTG treatment confirm this. All patients of two neuropaediatric departments in whose treatment course LTG had been administered, irrespective of the outcome of the therapy had been included in this study. By conducting semi-structured interviews with patients' parents and epileptologists, we collected qualitative epidemiological and epilepsy related data on seizure rate, adverse events and assessed changes of cognition and vigilance of LTG therapy on 119 patients. Each of the patients had been in the constant and continuous care of one and the same experienced epileptologist over the completeobservational period. Seizure control was more than 50% seizure reduction in 46% of the patients and is herewith comparable to that of other newer antiepileptic drugs. In the majority of patients, physicians and parents rated the patients' cognition and vigilance as unchanged during therapy. If changes were reported, these were more likely positive than negative for the patient and most prominent in concentration and vigilance. Parents' ratings were comparable to physicians' view. Results of earlier reports of a favorable cognitive profile of LTG seem to reach relevance in the long-term treatment of childhood epilepsies, as the neutral to beneficial effects of LTG on cognition and vigilance in long-term treatment is confirmed by physicians' and parents' experience. Our qualitative evaluation is supporting LTG as an anticonvulsive drug with a profile suitable for the use in children.

A dosing algorithm for converting from valproate monotherapy to lamotrigine monotherapy in patients with epilepsy

A dosing algorithm was used to guide the conversion of 77 patients with epilepsy (16 years of age) from valproate monotherapy through lamotrigine adjunctive therapy at 200mg daily to lamotrigine monotherapy at 500 mg daily in an open-label study comprising a lamotrigine escalation phase (8 weeks), a valproate withdrawal phase (6 weeks), and a lamotrigine monotherapy phase (4 weeks). The algorithm was designed to maintain stable trough concentrations of lamotrigine during valproate withdrawal to minimize seizure risk. Of the 77 patients, 11 prematurely withdrew for administrative reasons (noncompliance, consent withdrawn, loss to follow-up, protocol violation). Of the remaining 66 patients, 18 withdrew because of adverse events, and 48 completed the study. Among the 67 patients with at least one lamotrigine trough serum concentration after initiation of therapy (pharmacokinetic population), mean trough serum concentrations at the end of the lamotrigine escalation phase at a lamotrigine daily dose of 200 mg (7.9 microg/mL, SD = 3.3) did not differ significantly from values during the valproate withdrawal phase (8.7 microg/mL, SD = 3.5) and the lamotrigine monotherapy phase at a lamotrigine dose of 500 mg daily (7.2 microg/mL, SD = 3.3). A similar pattern of results was observed among the 34 patients who completed the study on lamotrigine (completer population). No serious rashes were reported, and the incidence of withdrawals because of decreased seizure control was low (n = 2, or 3%; both incidents were judged to be related to noncompliance). By employment of a four-step dosing algorithm, lamotrigine serum concentrations can be maintained at a stable level with favorable tolerability during a transition from lamotrigine 200mg daily as adjunctive therapy with valproate to lamotrigine monotherapy 500 mg daily.