Monotherapy trials in antiepileptic drugs: are modified "presurgical studies" a way out of the dilemma?

A new approach in anti-epileptic drug evaluation

Presurgical trials with video-electroencephalogram (EEG) monitoring for a couple of days provide the possibility to objectively and quantitatively analyze seizure activity during different drug treatments. Patients are provided with the optimal medical care and safety precautions when hospitalized. Hereby a method used in the antiepileptic drug (AED) trials called therapeutic intensive seizure analysis (TISA) has been recently introduced, by which AED efficacy on seizure activity can be objectively quantified by using continuous video-EEG monitoring. This could be used not only as a supplement to the traditional evaluation of AEDs' efficacy by treatment failure designs in large groups, but also can provide early individual information on the changes of seizure activity of each patient during the therapy. Data from TISA studies suggest that secondarily generalized tonic-clonic seizures (SGTCs) mostly occur in patients with a SGTC history after withdrawal of AED. The first 3 days of titration of a newly introduced AED was important for efficacy assessment; with a low risk of SGTCs. By using the TISA method an early recognition of first effects of a new AED on seizure activity and neuropsychological changes is possible, which can be correlated to serum concentration levels in a small sample size. The essentials of the proposed modification to the conventional presurgical trial are: (1) a complete withdrawal of AEDs should be avoided, if possible and (2) a titration phase limited to 3 days is suggested, using a condensed evaluation setting including the TISA method, serum concentration and neuropsychological monitoring. In addition long-term effects can be evaluated by repeated video-EEG monitoring.

Measuring the efficacy of antiepileptic drugs

Clinical trials of new antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) include regulatory studies aimed at demonstrating efficacy and reasonable safety, post-marketing open-open label studies and longer term outcome studies. Regulatory trials involve a carefully selected population of patients and are conducted under rigorously standardised conditions. Data from such studies cannot often be translated into clinical practice. Pragmatic post-marketing studies using flexible dosing schedules allow clinicians to better judge the utility of the new drug in a wider population of patients with epilepsy and decide the most appropriate dosing schedules. This paper discusses some of the issues surrounding the measurement of efficacy of new AEDs in both pre- and post-marketing phases of their development. All of the newer AEDs are initially used in patients with refractory partial seizures as adjunctive treatment. These trials are generally parallel-group studies although cross-over designs have been employed. The use of placebo-control is uncontroversial in this type of study. Efficacy endpoints are generally manipulations of seizure frequency on study drug compared to control. Global outcome measures and health related quality of life scores can also be used to measure efficacy. As the standard AEDs are associated with a high rate of seizure remission in patients who receive them as monotherapy, demonstration of superior efficacy of a new agent in a comparative trial will require large numbers of patients in a design that takes into account the natural history of treated epilepsy. Comparing investigational agents to a standard AED in an 'active-control' study with demonstration of equivalent efficacy would seem to be an acceptable way of assessing efficacy of new AEDs in this population. Some regulators, however, do not accept equivalence as proof of efficacy and insist on demonstration of superiority compared to a control. The use of placebo alone in the control group is ethically dubious. Several innovative study designs have, therefore, been used to satisfy regulatory requirements, while maintaining patient safety including withdrawal to monotherapy using high versus low dose comparators. Observational outcome studies provide the best opportunity of exploring the long-term utility of individual AEDs. Such studies largely follow standard clinical practice and need considerable time and resources. They can, however, yield valuable information about the effectiveness of AEDs in everyday clinical practice. Data from regulatory trials should be complemented by postmarketing studies and longer term studies of outcome to help clinicians decide the best way of utilising new AEDs and establishing their role in the therapeutic armamentarium.